Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL (FRANKWELL FOOTBRIDGE) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Officers

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to axe officers of the three Services.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): On present plans, about 1,000 officers will be leaving the Services on redundancy between now and the end of the decade.

Mr. Wall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to axe 182 out of 500 naval commanders? Is he aware that these continual cuts, allied with the disparity of Services pay in relation to industry—it is now some 20 per cent. below that of industry—are having a very grave effect on the morale of all three Services?

Mr. Mulley: These redundancies arise from the defence review and are being phased to have the minimum disturbance, although, naturaily, everyone is disturbed when good officers and men leave the Services. That is why I was particularly glad to be able to continue 41 Commando, because I thought it would be in the national interest so to do. I am advised that only 50 officer redundancies are scheduled for the Royal Navy in the period between now and 1980, and, as the hon. Member knows, most of the people leaving are volunteers.

Ship Repair Contracts

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many ship repair contracts his Department has let for the years 1975, 1976 and 1977 in (a) the North-West Region, (b) the North-East Region, (c) Scotland, (d) the South-East Region and (e) the South-West Region.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will arrange for this information to be published in the Official Report as it involves a lengthy table of figures.

Mr. Loyden: I thank my hon. Friend for the information and the fact that it


will be published. Is he aware of the plight of the Merseyside ship repairing industry? I recognise that this is not a responsibility exclusively for his Department, but does he agree that there ought to be a quota for the sharing of work in the regions? The facts and figures indicate the need for this.

Mr. Duffy: Yes, I am aware of the position on Merseyside and of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend, not merely on this occasion but on previous occasions when he has led a deputation to the Ministry of Defence and has corresponded with me.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent Type 42 destroyer contract placed with Cammell Laird. In terms of the value of contracts placed, if not the number of contracts, over the period covered by the Question, his region—the North-West—has done better than any other, with the exception of the North-East.

Following is the information:


TABLE 1


Region
1975
1976
1977 (to 30th June 1977)


North-West
…
4
3
3


North-East
…
16
21
8


Scotland
…
Nil
Nil
Nil


South-East
…
4
2
1


South-West
…
2
5
Nil

The figures above exclude small contracts for the repair of minor vessels and craft which are placed in the areas where these craft operate because it would not be economical, for the amount of work required, to move them to other areas.

The number of such contracts is as follows:—


TABLE 2


Region
1975
1976
1977 (to 30th June 1977)


North-West
…
4
4
2


North-East
…
Nil
2
Nil


Scotland
…
39
35
17


South-East
…
9
8
10


South-West
…
8
4
6

Northern Ireland

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about the strength and operations of Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): There are 14 major units of the combat arms, or about 14,000 Regular

troops, in Northern Ireland. The Armed Forces are continuing to operate with success in support of the civil authorities in the Province. Increased emphasis is being placed on the collection of information which will improve the effectiveness of the security forces and facilitate the prosecution of those who break the law.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: To relieve the strain on Regular units, should not the Ulster Defence Regiment be further and speedily expanded, and, therefore, must not UDR pay and allowances be overhauled? To take on example, I know a married couple, both of whom are serving with distinction in the regiment, who would be financially better off if one of them resigned. Does the Secretary of State endorse the principle stated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that no Service man or woman should be worse off because of an Ulster posting?

Mr. Brown: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is already aware that we are expanding the UDR, particularly the full-time element, in regard to which another 700 full-timers are being recruited. At the present time we have full-time platoons already in operation. Three of them are already in full operation, two of them are partially in operation, we are in the process of recruiting another platoon, and a further five platoons will be recruited.

Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware of the satisfaction which attended the announcement that the Government intended to make 2,500 their immediate target for the size of the full-time UDR? May I ask him to allow nothing to defer the reorganisation of the UDR which the embodiment of this element will involve?
With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), will the Minister continue to be available to hon. Members who bring to his notice cases of apparent hardship where a wife and husband are both serving in the UDR?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his observations. I assure him that we are giving the highest priority, within resources, to the expansion of the UDR. If right hon. and hon. Members have a case of hardship


that they wish to bring to my attention, I shall listen and look at it with sympathy.

Mr. Goodhart: Can the Minister say whether the special inquiry into pay and conditions for Regular soldiers in Northern Ireland, which he announced during the course of the Army debate, has finished its work and whether any further statements about improvements in pay and conditions can be expected?

Mr. Brown: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that my right hon. Friend has already announced a considerable improvement for the resident battalions. With regard to other issues, I am sure that these will be looked at in relation to the next phase of pay policy.

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on future nuclear test explosions by Great Britain; if he intends a further test at Nevada; and if he will now discontinue research and development of a British Cruise missile.

Mr. Mulley: It has not been the general practice of any Government to give details of nuclear test programmes or to make prior announcements. On the last part of the question, I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the type of long-range Cruise missile under development in the United States. We have no programme for such a missile.

Mr. Allaun: While I am glad of those last few words, I am not glad about my right hon. Friend's opening words since he did not deny that there is to be such a test. Why is such a test needed if Britain carries out her election pledge that there should be no future generation of nuclear weapons? Secondly, would it not help the vital test ban talks if Britain forwent these tests and appealed to America and Russia to do likewise?

Mr. Mulley: I neither denied nor confirmed that there may be future tests. If one uses the form of words that have been used for many years, one is open to that kind of implication. It is quite impossible to answer speculative questions one way or the other.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister announced that we are

extremely glad to join the United States and the Soviet Union in trying to get a comprehensive test ban. Whether or not there may be some desire to have a test in future in order to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear weapons, I can assure my hon. Friend that we should not want any considerations of that sort to stand in the way of a successful outcome to the comprehensive test ban negotiations.

Mr. Pattie: Is it not true that the achievement of the Soviet Union of nuclear equivalence with the United States means that the need for Britain to maintain her independent nuclear deterrent is all the greater? Will the Secretary of State confirm his support for the maintenance of the independent nuclear deterrent and say whether he believes that the Cruise missile should be a vital future option for this country?

Mr. Mulley: As successive Ministers have made clear, we have no intention of abandoning the existing Polaris weapons, but, equally, we do not intend to take a decision about a new generation of such nuclear weapons. With regard to the Cruise missile, we have no research and development programme but we have limited studies so that we can take an informed part in discussions on the defence and arms control aspects of the Cruise missile in NATO and at similar meetings.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman resent the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) in relation to developing research on the Cruise missile? Does that not add to the view that Britain's alleged independent deterrent is no longer independent? Ought we now to take steps ourselves to acquire the American Cruise missile?

Mr. Mulley: With regard to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, we have always made clear that the nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, which we have are assigned to the Alliance, although their use would be subject to the approval of the Prime Minister. It would be premature to take any decisions about the Cruise missile until the development programme in the United States is rather further down the road than it now is.

Mr. Newens: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arguments which are frequently put forward to justify nuclear tests by Britain can equally be advanced in favour of nuclear tests by every other country that is able to avail itself of nuclear weapons? Does he not regard it as desirable to argue against some of these arguments, bearing in mind the dreadful cumulative effects that would be incurred if this country went ahead with nuclear weapon tests?

Mr. Mulley: I share completely my hon. Friend's concern about the proliferation consequences. Indeed, years ago, on behalf of the then Labour Government, I put forward a proposal at Geneva which, had it been accepted by the other Powers, would have led to a comprehensive test ban. Any tests that we have had comply in every respect with the partial test ban treaty that is in force. We should be the last country to seek to avoid any international obligations of that kind.

Mr. Churchill: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the recent deployment by the Soviet Union of a massive new arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons, particularly Backfire and SSX20—a mobile intermediate—range ballistic missile—which are specifically directed at neighbours of the Soviet Union and at Western Europe? Will he give an assurance that paramount among our considerations in the preparation of a comprehensive test ban treaty will be the security of all the peoples of Western Europe?

Mr. Mully: The hon. Gentleman can be assured that all relevant considerations will be in the minds not only of ourselves but of our American friends. I have no doubt that the Soviet Union will be looking after her interests as well.

Defence Cuts

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the implementation of defence cuts.

Mr. Mulley: The cuts in 1977–78 are now being implemented. For 1978–79 a wide-ranging study has been carried out, and we have now put our preliminary conclusions to NATO as a basis for consultation. We shall not take final decisions until we have heard the views of our allies.

Mr. Goodhart: Does not the Secretary of State feel some embarrassment in submitting to NATO these plans for further massive cuts in our defence budget next year when he has just signed a ministerial communiqué calling for a 3 per cent. real increase in European NATO defence spending and when the Prime Minister has told us that we are on the threshold of unprecedented national prosperity?

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman is less accurate with his facts than usual. There is no question of having signed a communiqué or that the communiqué was a commitment. It was an aim for a 3 per cent. increase starting in 1979. We are now talking about the year 1978–79. I have, of course, no shame whatever in NATO councils when, as is well known, we devote a bigger proportion of our resources to defence than does any other member of NATO, apart from the United States and Greece.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend continue to resist the demand from the Conservative Party to increase defence expenditure when it is calling on the Government to reduce public expenditure as a whole? Does he not agree that an increase in defence expenditure must mean a far greater cut-back on pensions, social services, education and other things?

Mr. Mulley: All the relevant considerations will be in the minds of Ministers when we come in the usual way to consider the public expenditure survey for future years. I take my hon. Friend's point. I find it a little nauseating to have lectures about the need for drastic cuts in public expenditure in general, not only in this area but in other areas, and opposition to any reductions in a particular area.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Secretary of State accept congratulations on the success of the naval review last week at Spithead and also on his ingenuity in scraping together everything that would float to put into the shop window on that occasion? Does he realise that that, as a contribution to NATO's premier European Navy, indicates a clear need for expansion rather than for further cuts?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a little unfair to his old Service. Not everything afloat was at Spithead. Quite a number of ships were


on operational patrol duties. Fewer than 60 per cent. were there. While we have fewer ships than we had at the comparable review 24 years ago, I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would agree that the capacity and fighting power of the ships at Spithead was greatly in excess of the Fleet in older times.
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for what he says about the arrangements. I shall convey them to the Admiralty Board. I have had many comments of appreciation from hon. Members about the arrangements.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Have the Government accepted a 3 per cent. a year increase, or have they merely postponed it, and kicked it out of touch? Do they realise that it will cost us £7·3 billion a year at constant prices in five years' time? If the present rate of inflation continues, it will cost £16·1 billion in five years. Will he tell his NATO colleagues that we just cannot continue any longer with this nonsense?

Mr. Mulley: As I have explained on previous occasions, I have made no commitments to my NATO colleagues on the future trends of our defence expenditure, because these decisions must be taken in the light of what is thought necessary and the resources that are available. I cannot accept my hon. Friend's arithmetic. I shall do all in my power—and I hope that he will help me—in making sure that the rate of inflation is nowhere near its present level in years ahead.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Defence, is it not rather odd that he should so much welcome cuts in public expenditure being reflected to such an extent in cuts in defence expenditure? If he believes what the Prime Minister has said about our economy—and presumably he is one of the few who does believe it—he should say to the Prime Minister that, as we are doing so well, the further damaging cuts in defence expenditure next year need not take place.

Mr. Mulley: It would be of interest to the House—but I do not propose to do it—if I could give a dress rehearsal of what I might say on these matters. As I have made clear to the House, I accept that, when public expenditure cuts have to be made, defence should bear a pro-

portion of those cuts—and our proportion is not massive, as has been suggested—along with other programmes. I would be very interested if the Opposition would give even an approximation of the figure that they think we should be spending.

Far East

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on defence problems in the Far East with the Defence Ministers of the Chinese People's Republic.

Mr. Mulley: None, Sir.

Mr. Hooley: Would it not be useful for the Secretary of State to have conversations with the Defence Minister of China with a view to making sensible arrangements about the defence of Hong Kong? Is it not absurd to maintain a British military garrison there? It is pointless, because such a garrison could not possibly defend the territory and could only surrender if conflict broke out.

Mr. Mulley: I have no objections to having discussions with the Chinese Defence Minister. As my hon. Friend knows, we are very happy and willing to consider exchanges of various kinds. However, this is a matter more for the Foreign Secretary than for me. There is no great concern in any quarter to upset the existing status quo and the agreement with the Hong Kong Government.

Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be useful for him to meet the Chinese Defence Minister and ascertain whether he agrees with the views of NATO experts that the doctrine, training and armaments of the Soviet forces have not a defensive purpose but an offensive one?

Mr. Mulley: If—it is extremely speculative—I had discussions with the Chinese, no doubt these matters might arise.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the proposal that he and the Defence Ministers of NATO should have informal conversations with the Chinese Defence Minister, bearing in mind that both NATO and China have the same problem—the possibility of Soviet aggression?

Mr. Mulley: That is a most interesting suggestion. I cannot speak for my NATO


colleagues, but it is a point that I would bear in mind if the occasion arose.

RAF North Cotes

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will pay an official visit to RAF North Cotes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Brotherton: If the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman went to North Cotes, they would realise that a lot of married quarters there are unoccupied. Will the Minister take steps, with the Property Services Agency, to make sure that these 100 houses that are unoccupied are made available to my constituents or anyone else who wishes to live in them?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to get a factual answer, he should put down a specific Question and not a general one. However, I think that I can help him. Of the 94 married quarters being retained for RAF North Cotes, only 23 are vacant and these are mostly for work services. Where there are instances of properties remaining vacant for a long time, we are only too happy to transfer them to the PSA in order to dispose of them as quickly as possible.

Mr. Townsend: Would it not be sensible to relax the rules of married quarters in order to allow more single Service men to take advantage of them?

Mr. Wellbeloved: If that were done, a wage cost benefit would arise that would affect the whole pay structure of the Armed Forces. However, this suggestion could be considered at a future date.

Aircraft Interceptions

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many interceptions of unidentified or Warsaw Pact aircraft have been made by the RAF in the last 12 months to the latest available date.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The Royal Air Force, both in the United Kingdom and in Germany, maintains a constant watch on all aircraft which without notice approach the air space which it is committed to defend, and intercepts and identifies those

it wishes to check. Although it is not the practice to publish detailed statistics of such interceptions, I can say that on average they have taken place two or three times a week.

Mr. Cartwright: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's reticence about numbers, may I ask whether, on the basis of the figures he has indicated, he is satisfied with the rate of interceptions? Also, is he satisfied that the RAF has the capability to intercept any aircraft that might violate our air space?

Mr. Wellbeloved: One must draw a distinction between the United Kingdom air defence region and our sovereign air space. There have been no Soviet or Warsaw Pact penetrations of our sovereign air space, and I am satisfied that in peace time we would be able to intercept and identify any aircraft that penetrated it.

Mr. Kershaw: Does not the high figure of interceptions underline the importance of having manned aircraft, and also of having a high performance aircraft such as the Tornado, at our disposal?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The high figures are a tribute to the professionalism of those who serve in the RAF and the superb quality of the aircraft they fly.

Nimrod Aircraft (Fishery Protection)

Mr. Torney: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the Nimrod fishing protection rôle.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Nimrod aircraft of the Royal Air Force have carried out their fishery protection rôle most effectively during the past six months. We will continue to keep the rôle under review in the light of experience and in consultation with the other Departments involved.

Mr. Torney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he not agree that there has been a change of circumstances in the last week or so inasmuch as there has been a ban on herring fishing? In the light of the fact that some foreign Powers seem to want to disregard that ban, is he absolutely certain that all the necessary facilities are available to do the job of policing our waters and enforcing the ban, which, I believe, has a great deal of support on all sides of the House?

Mr. Wellbeloved: My Department is satisfied that the Royal Navy and the RAF have the capacity to maintain surveillance, as in the case of the RAF. and to intercept, as in the case of the Navy.

Mr. Marten: Would the Royal Navy fire on the ships of our EEC partners?

Mr. Wellbeloved: The precise rules of engagement for our ships at sea are within the competence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. I know the rules for engagement for the RAF.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware that normally our partners in the EEC, or indeed any others arrested in territorial waters, do not fire back but accept arrest gracefully?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure we all hope that our partners in the Common Market will act with the same common sense as will Her Majesty's Government and that this dispute will be speedily resolved, so that we may conserve our herring stocks and be able to earn a decent livelihood in future.

NATO

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to respond to SACEUR's call for improved readiness of NATO forces.

Mr. Mulley: We are studying a number of measures and have already made one improvement: the decision not to disband No. 41 Commando Royal Marines was announced last Tuesday.

Mr. Churchill: The whole House will welcome the decision on No. 41 Royal Marine Commando, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the damage being caused to the operational efficiency of the Royal Air Force as a result of the mass exodus from married quarters, 10,000 of which have been vacated, if we take the overall figures for the three Services in the past two years, as a direct result of the over-comparability on which the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has insisted in respect of accommodation charges?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot, without notice, confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's figures, but there is a tendency, in civil as

well as in military life, for people to desire to own their own homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is well known. I have no idea why Opposition Members should be so surprised. This has been Labour Party policy for many years. However, there is no point in flogging the horse involving comparability of charges or otherwise. They are on an analogue device which was set up by a Conservative Government. If anybody comes up with any other basis on which we can make our charges, subject to pay policy we shall be happy to consider it.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In considering improvements to NATO, may I ask whether NATO has considered examining the possibilities of the United States neutron bomb? Has the NATO Nuclear Planning Group discussed the deployment of such a weapon in future in the European theatre?

Mr. Mulley: The short programme for NATO to improve its readiness would not include consideration of the neutron bomb or any other weapon of that character. We have no such plans ourselves. Although it is difficult for me to go beyond the communiqué of the Nuclear Planning Group, I can tell my hon. Friend that we did not consider that matter.

Mr. Hooson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the greatest contribution which NATO countries could make to the readiness of the Alliance to meet attack would be to support a common communications and signalling system?

Mr. Mulley: That is one of the priority areas of the study. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the more common and more efficient communications and signalling systems we have, the better will be our readiness at relatively low cost.

Mr. Roper: Will the Secretary of State and his NATO colleagues review the speed of response of the NATO forces in view of the new Soviet tactical doctrine of the daring thrust put forward by General Kulikov, the new Commander-in-Chief of the Warsaw Pact forces?

Mr. Mulley: I think that the Alliance is aware that the warning time in the event of any emergency might be shorter now than was expected in the assessments that were made some years ago. In


common with our allies, we are reviewing and improving the time for our reinforcements. It would be counter-productive if we were to issue a list of those arrangements, because it would make such reinforcements ready targets in the event of attack.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of an analogue, may I ask whether he has seen reports in the Press, if not in his Department, on the message sent by the Northern Ireland Command to his Department, regarding the grave disquiet in our forces in Northern Ireland about pay levels and the danger to morale as a result of what has happened so far? What does he intend to do about the situation?

Mr. Mulley: The comments to which the right hon. Gentleman refers were collected before I was able to make my announcement about putting resident battalions on field service conditions. My information is that there was considerable satisfaction among those resident battalions as a result of a tax-free increase of £5 for privates and up to £10 for lieutenant-colonels.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The minute makes clear that the improvement in respect of resident battalions was welcomed, but what was causing concern was the question of conditions for the rest of the forces in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mulley: As far as I had official sight of the papers, I think it is clear that the comments concerned were collected before 27th May, although I understand that the letter was dispatched thereafter. However, I cannot comment on illinformed pieces in papers such as the Daily Telegraph.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will next meet the other NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mulley: I look forward to meeting the other NATO Defence Ministers at the NATO ministerial meetings of the Nuclear Planning Group, Eurogroup and Defence Planning Committee which will take place towards the end of this year. No firm dates have yet been fixed.

Mr. Pattie: At those meetings will the right hon. Gentleman raise with his NATO colleagues the subject of the growing influence of the Soviet merchant marine, which has been used as an extension of Russian influence? Does he think that in the light of these developments he should consider increasing the Royal Navy's contribution?

Mr. Mulley: I think it is probably the case that my NATO colleagues do not fully appreciate the substantial contribution made by the Royal Navy to NATO defences, although I know that it is appreciated by the Supreme Allied Commanders, particularly by SACLANT. I cannot say until I see the agenda of the meeting whether it would be appropriate to go into detail about Soviet maritime marine forces.

Mr. Luce: Since the Government carry a major responsibility for the weakening of NATO during the past three years, is it not the prime duty of the Secretary of State to respond to the call of the conference of NATO Ministers to increase defence budgets in 1979 and thereafter? For a start, will he announce, and inform his NATO colleagues, that he proposes to cancel the plans to cut the defence budget by £200 million in 1978–79?

Mr. Mulley: I totally refute the suggestion that this country, which continues to share a heavy part of NATO's defence capability, is responsible for any weakening in the Alliance or that the Alliance has been weakened. That is contrary, for example, to the view of the retiring Chairman of the Military Committee, the distinguished Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton. I do not accept that NATO has been weakened or that this country has been responsible for such a weakening. The defence cuts have been decided and debated, and it would be a little irrelevant to bring what we are doing by way of cuts this year into the 1980s planning of NATO. We shall be considering further provision for defence in the normal way that Governments conduct their public expenditure surveys.

Mr. Fernyhough: When my right hon. Friend meets his NATO defence colleagues, will he consider having a particular word with the German Defence Minister to remind him that the burden of the Army of the Rhine is ever-increasing and


that the Germans have not made their contribution, although they said that they would? Will my right hon. Friend tell the German Minister that unless the Germans play fair by us we shall have to think in terms of reducing numbers in order to effect the necessary economies?

Mr. Mulley: That is a bilateral matter of a sort that I am not sure would be appropriate for the deliberation of the full NATO Defence Planning Committee. I expect to have the pleasure of meeting my German colleague later this week. However, the negotiations with the Federal Republic are being conducted by the Foreign Secretary. I hope and believe that some settlement of this offset matter will be achieved before too long.

Mr. Goodhew: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the NATO Defence Ministers and raises the subject of improved readiness, will he be able to assure them that British forces can be ready without the use of British Airways aircraft and Sealink ferries, or, if not, that these will be readily available?

Mr. Mulley: Of course we have contingency plans of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it would be a grave misuse of defence resources to have available all the sea and air transport that would be necessary only in the event of an emergency. The whole of NATO's policy is to prevent—and it has been successful in preventing—such an emergency. I can imagine the criticism if we had a whole fleet of aircraft and a flotilla of ships that were never used because NATO was successful in preventing war.

Sir Ian Gilmour: At the next NATO meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman regard himself as a nearly normal Defence Minister and abide by the decitions of the Alliance, or will he, owing to the incompetence of his Government, be contracting out of any decision which has been made, saying that it does not apply to us?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know what "nearly normal" means in the right hon. Gentleman's vocabulary, but if anyone has run away from talking in plain language it is the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I have asked how much they think we ought to spend and I have received no response. I shall certainly

continue to make a robust defence of what we are doing in this country. I have not run away from any commitment that I have given, and my NATO colleagues know exactly where I and the Government stand in these matters.

Secretary of State for Defence (Engagements)

Mr. MacFarquhar: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his engagements for 5th July.

Mr. Mulley: This morning I attended a meeting of the Admiralty Board. Also, in addition to any duties in this House, I shall be having discussions with my colleagues.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Despite my right hon. Friend's comments earlier about ill-informed reports in the Daily Telegraph, will he spend a quiet moment looking at a report by that newspaper's defence correspondent on 22nd June which suggested that Air Chief Marshal Sir Neil Cameron was studying designs for new aircraft to replace existing aircraft in 1980? Is he aware that some of the design specifications he is looking for would seem to be covered by the MRCA? Will he confirm that that aircraft will last into the 1980s for the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Mulley: The Tornado will not arrive until the 1980s. Air Chief Marshal Sir Neil Cameron flew the aircraft recently and was extremely pleased with its performance. I am distressed at the way the aircraft has been "knocked". It is very unfair to all those engaged in its production, as well as "knocking" the possibility of successful collaborative ventures. Studies are taking place in conjunction with NATO in terms of the replacement of other aircraft which are now used in the Royal Air Force. They will be replaced not by the Tornado but by the Harrier and the Jaguar. Because it takes so long to plan and agree production aircraft, there has to be a 10 to 15-year time interval.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has the Secretary of State spent any part of his busy day thinking about the representations which have been made to him from all quarters on forces' pay? Has he spent any part of today wondering why the men whom he sends to Ulster are drawing less pay than are the people at Grunwick,


about whom he so actively demonstrated his concern?

Mr. Mulley: I shall answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman readily. The pay at Grunwick has risen substantially since the dispute began. I understood that the basic rate was £28 as at August last year, and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) quoted a figure of £53 per week received by a private soldier in Ulster. That was an instance in which the soldier in question received an addition of free accommodation and free food.

Guardsman Tom Holdsworth

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the terms of engagement, career and prospects of Coldstream Guardsman Tom Holdsworth.

Mr. Mulley: Guardsman Holdsworth joined the Army as a junior soldier on 30th July 1974 and was discharged on 27th June 1977.

Mr. Corbett: That may be, but can my right hon. Friend say whether it is the general practice for serving officers to make favourable statements in court on behalf of Service men who have pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges? Is it not necessary to give advice to commanding officers to carry out these duties with a little more caution?

Mr. Mulley: There have been a lot of misunderstandings surrounding this matter, and my hon. Friend is guilty—no doubt unwittingly—of a yet further misunderstanding. There was no question of the officer going to make a favourable statement, and it was most unusual that there was such a requirement for an officer to be heard in the Court of Appeal at all. I am sorry if there have been misunderstandings about this, but there was no question of the officer acting in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that this deplorable case in no way tarnishes the reputation or professional standards of the battalion with which this soldier was serving in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Mulley: My concern throughout has been to try to prevent unfair criticism of the Army in general and of the Brigade

of Guards in particular. I understand that this soldier was most satisfactory in the discharge of his duties.

CBI

Ql. Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wriggles-worth) on 17th February.

Mr. Cartwright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the much more optimistic forecast from the CBI this week, the substantial improvement in official reserves and the prospects for a stable pound and stable interest rates mean that the prospects for production investment are better than they have been for a long time? Will he therefore press the CBI to seek to persuade firms to bring forward investment programmes so that industry can give a lead in the programme of national recovery for which my right hon. Friend called at the weekend?

The Prime Minister: The reserve figures announced yesterday were at a record level. That is a sign of stability. The most encouraging aspect of the CBI trends is the reference to the fact that the CBI expects the rate of increase in prices to slow down towards the end of the year. That is something that I have been saying for some time, and I am glad that the CBI's views coincide with mine. [Interruption.] I hope that the Opposition are also pleased about it.
On investment prospects, I certainly hope that the CBI will continue to encourage new investment. The forecasts for 1978 are good and the indicators generally are moving in the right direction. However, that does not mean that there are not—as I said at the weekend—a number of serious problems that we must face and overcome. Nevertheless, the indicators are pointing the right way.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Prime Minister tell the CBI what level of pay settlements during the next 12 months is consistent with decelerating inflation?

The Prime Minister: No. We have not discussed figures with the CBI on that matter, although discussions are now going on with the TUC.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Could my right hon. Friend arrange a meeting between the Opposition Front Bench and Lord Watkinson, so that Lord Watkinson can tell them about his prognostications for the next decade, which coincide so closely with those of the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: Lord Watkinson is not an utter stranger to those on the Opposition Front Bench, and he will no doubt be supplying the same information to them as he does to us.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Prime Minister agree that it ought to be no part of a politician's job to seek to encourage or discourage investment? Should not investment be decided by individual entrepreneurs according to their assessment of the profitability of each act of investment?

The Prime Minister: No. I understand that that is the Opposition view, but I do not know what would have happened to Wales or Scotland during the past 20 years if that doctrine had been followed. In broad terms, of course, individual entrepreneurs will take their own decisions on profitability and they will also decide on what they expect to be the prospects for the economy as a whole and for reasonable expansion. It is the duty of all politicians to place in front of them the best assessment they can make about how the economy is likely to go in future.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister when he last took the chair at NEDC.

The Prime Minister: I last took the chair at NEDC on 2nd February. In addition, on 22nd June I took the chair at a conference of representatives from the sector working parties and the economic development committees on the industrial strategy. This conference enabled the Government to hear the views of more than 100 leading trade unionists and managers. Strong support was expressed for the industrial strategy and there was discussion about such matters as overseas markets, import substitution, investment and productivity, relations between customers and users

and communication at company level. Another similar conference will be held on 11th July.

Mr. Thomas: In regard to the power plant sector, on which my right hon. Friend has no doubt heard the views of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions about the prospects for a GEC monopoly of the industry, is he aware that his halo over Drax B is, like all haloes, only nine inches away from becoming a noose? In view of the urgency of the situation, will he give a firm undertaking that the Government will reach a decision on this much-prevaricated matter before the impending redundancies at C. A. Parsons and Babcock and Wilcox are implemented?

The Prime Minister: There is an important difference of opinion here. The GEC management, the National Enterprise Board, the CPRS and the Government all take the view that the industry should be restructured if it is to have a long-term future. My hon. Friend is vehemently opposed to that and is supporting the workers of Parsons and the unions involved. However, that does not alter the nature of the argument and the Government must look at the long-term interests. We cannot enforce such a restructuring. I am glad that it is going ahead on the boiler-making side, but my hon. Friend has not been able to persuade his constituents in Parsons—if he has tried—that a similar restructuring of the turbo-generator side would be in their interests. As he has not done that and the Government cannot do it, we shall have to consider the future of Parsons against the present position and announce our decision as soon as we have reached a conclusion.

Mr. Tim Renton: What positive contribution to industrial investment is being made by the sector working parties? Are not at least some of them simply talking shops?

The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is doing less than justice to the large numbers on both sides of industry who are giving their time voluntarily to these matters.

Mr. Powell: They are wasting their time.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may think so but the people


involved do not, and it is their time and not the time of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Adley: They are fiddling like Nero.

The Prime Minister: The Opposition are barking up the wrong tree, or down the wrong alley, on this subject. I should like to encourage the Opposition to take off their party spectacles and look at the issues properly. At the conference that I held, the managers, industrialists and trade unionists involved all believed that it was worth while and should be carried down to company level. I expect to find a similar view on 11th July, and I should be happy if someone from the Opposition Front Bench would come to some of these conferences. He or she might learn one or two things.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his own talking shop on industrial relations is one of the finest in the world, bringing together, as it does, employers and trade unions in a period of very grave industrial turbulence? He is to be congratulated on that because the present deadly situation can be solved only by the mixture of flexibility and firmness at which my right hon. Friend is so adept. Does he agree that if the Tories, with their dogmatic rigidity, returned to power, the country would be in an appalling industrial mess?

The Prime Minister: I accept what my hon. Friend has said and I wish that the Opposition would do the same. Looking at the analysis of the conclusions reached at my last meeting, I see that every subject was introduced either by a leading figure in the industry on the management side or by a leading trade unionist. They put forward a number of valuable suggestions and commented on what they were doing and what the Government should be doing. All these things help to promote the better atmosphere that British industry needs in order to get higher productivity. I hope that the Opposition will realise this and will join in.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 5th July.

The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Prime Minister spend some time today discussing with Mr. Roy Jenkins his speech at the weekend in which he accused certain members of the Government of seeking to subvert the voice of the British people as expressed in the referendum on the Common Market? Does the Prime Minister agree with that view expressed by a former Foreign Secretary and Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party?

The Prime Minister: Among my many duties, I do not have to take responsibility for speeches made by the President of the Commission.

Mr. Buchan: Reverting to the Prime Minister's earlier answer, may I ask whether he will have time today to meet his ministerial colleagues in relation to the Drax B order? Is he aware that the delay is becoming unbearable and that, while we accept his concern for the long-term future of the industry, if the order is not placed quickly there will be no industry left? Can he, therefore, take the chance today to knock the heads of his ministerial colleagues together and get a decision?

The Prime Minister: I cannot undertake to do that today.

Mr. Mike Thomas: How about tomorrow?

The Prime Minister: Not even tomorrow. The problem must be properly processed. I regret very much that the restructuring of the industry seems unlikely to go ahead. I do not believe that this is in the best interest of the people working in the industry, and in five years' time they may come to regret the obduracy being shown on this matter. The CEGB will have to consider the ordering programme. The Government are in touch with the Board on that matter and we shall have to reach a conclusion as soon as we can. I do not want anyone to lose his job, but I am bound to say to the handful of my hon. Friends who share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire,


West (Mr. Buchan) that Drax B will not prove the salvation of this firm.

Mrs. Thatcher: As one of the Prime Minister's official engagements today is answering Questions, will he take time to repudiate the view contained in a recent article written by his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who said that his views were virtually indistinguishable from those of the Communist Party except in one particular—namely, that he did not rule out civil war as a means of keeping Socialism in power?

The Prime Minister: If I were to spend time answering questions about every speech made by every public figure in this country, I should never do anything else. If I were asked to make a marginal comment on the speech of my hon. Friend—and I wish to say nothing unkind in his absence—I should say that I have always regarded him as a philosophical revolutionary rather than one who really understands how a machine gun works.

Mrs. Thatcher: So the Prime Minister does not repudiate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members expect to be heard when they are called.

Mrs. Thatcher: So the Prime Minister does not repudiate that view but is content to rely on the support of such fellow travellers to keep him in power?

The Prime Minister: I could, of course, give the right hon. Lady my views on these matters, but unfortunately I do not seem able to endow her with a sense of humour.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister have time today to follow the deliberations of the conference of the National Union of Mineworkers? Since he referred at the weekend to one man's excessive wage demand being another man's ticket to the dole queue, will he comment on the deliberations and the decisions that the members of the NUM appear to be taking against the advice of their president?

The Prime Minister: It would be imprudent for me to comment, in the

middle of the conference, on decisions that are just coming over the tape. There is too much instant comment demanded of all public figures, and we might sometimes take a little time to reflect on what has been said.

Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend, in giving advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), take a little time to give advice to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, who apparently fails to understand that Adam Smith contributed a great deal to Marxist ideas? Is he aware that Adam Smith, together with Ricardo, was one of those who developed the Labour theory on values, which was a contribution that was taken up by Marx and developed further? Perhaps the right hon. Lady should understand a little more about Marxism before she becomes involved in something that she obviously knows little about.

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to studying the speech that the right hon. Lady made yesterday. I hope to cull a few quotations from it to adorn future speeches. As for the relationship between Adam Smith, Marx, Ricardo, Malthus, John Stuart Mill and all those other great figures who have contributed, I do not wish to denigrate any of them but I must remind my hon. Friend that it was Morgan Phillips who said that the Labour movement owed more to John Wesley than it did to Marx.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matters of the Seventh Report of the Examiner of Statutory Rules and the Northern Ireland Electricity Industry, being matters relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Location of Offices Bureau (Amendment) Order 1977 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HERITAGE

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move—[Interruption].

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for a few seconds. I am afraid that his audience may be smaller than it should be.

Mr. More: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the National Heritage.
The artistic treasures of Britain will never be fully appreciated: we have too many of them. Within this small island of ours, our ancestors and contemporaries have accumulated such treasures that, if they were all on public view, the pedantry of a Baedeker would be submerged by them and the stamina of a Pevsner would quail before them. From such prospects we have been mercifully saved by families such as the Rothschilds and Roseberys who for many years kept their treasures hidden from public eyes. It is, nevertheless, upon our private families that we must principally rely if our heritage is to be preserved. Our taxation system must be reformed and geared to help them, and everything that I say in asking leave to introduce this Bill must be subordinate to that.
The last words of the late Lord Rosebery have not been recorded but they might well have been, like Louis XV, "Après moi le déluge ". Certainly, after his death, the deluge burst upon us; and with the present pressures of economics and taxation upon the private owner, there is no prospect that it will abate. On the contrary, the prospect is, that unless drastic action is taken, the National Heritage is likely to suffer much greater disasters than anything that has happened hitherto. It is with the object of initiating such drastic action that I am seeking leave to introduce this Bill into the House.
The Bill, as will appear, is related essentially to the National Land Fund, and for this reason some carefully drawn provisions will be required.
The first essential must be to provide guidelines, and this my Bill will seek to do. Obviously many such guidelines are already operated, for example by those excellent bodies the Historic Buildings

Council, the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and the Department of the Environment in its circulars about conservation and listing.
But where what is in prospect is the expenditure of public money to prevent heritage items being lost to the nation or the world, the guidelines must clearly be of an altogether more stringent and restrictive character. For in a democratic assembly we cannot forget that we are representing in the main taxpayers who, so far from wishing to see public money, which is their money, being spent upon the heritage, would far rather have it spent on housing, larger and better Concordes or additional football fields. A rigid selectivity will therefore be laid down.
The second essential must be to differentiate in favour of the native product. For example, in the sphere of pictures, while laying guidelines for the Divine Dozen—Botticelli, Mantegna, Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, Titian, Holbein, Rubens, Velazquez, Rembrandt Poussin and Claude—there will also be gentler guidelines for our own Sacred Seven—Hogarth, Reynolds, Gainsborough, Lawrence, Stubbs, Turner and Constable.
The third essential will be to make it clear that any acquisitions by the Land Fund will be permissible only as a last resort—after every other alternative has failed.
The Bill will then deal with the question of trustees. Here I make acknowledgment to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, in another place and to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack), who in their recent Bills have pioneered the idea of vesting of the Land Fund in trustees with wide managing powers. My own Bill will go further. The trustees, like the Muses, will be nine in number—four to represent the Arts: nominees from the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert, the National Gallery and the Historic Buildings Council; and four to represent the Philistines; nominees from the TUC, the CBI, the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury; and at its head a nominee from the Department which will have the ungrateful task of managing such land and buildings as accrue to the Fund—the Department of the Environment.
My Bill will have an essential accompaniment in which I do not doubt I shall


have the help of the Government. This will be a Bill to increase the Land Fund immediately to a figure of £100 million, for this is the scale on which we must now be thinking, with promises to supplement it in proportion to any continued inflation in the value of works of art and to disengage it from our embarrassing undertakings to the International Monetary Fund. My Bill will direct the trustees to operate within the income of perhaps £10 million per annum that the Fund will produce. They will have salaries and in any year in which they spend more than the income their salaries will be proportionately reduced and they will be reported to Mr. Speaker.
I hope this Bill may be a first step towards saving the outstanding treasures of what remains of our national heritage.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. Paul Channon, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Andrew Faulds, Mr. John Hannam, Mr. Carol Mather, Mr. John Parker, Sir David Renton and Mr. George Strauss.

HERITAGE BILL

Mr. Jasper More accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the National Heritage: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — TORTS (INTERFERENCE WITH GOODS) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, signified.]

Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

POWER TO VARY REBATES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 12, at end insert—
(3A) No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period.

3.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I think that it is for the advantage of the House to take with this Lords Amendment No. 2, in Clause 2, page 3, line 3, at end insert—
(3A) No order shall be made under subsection (I) above unless the Department of Manpower Services for Northern Ireland thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting


the level at which the Northern Ireland Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period.

Mr. Walker: Both amendments deal essentially with the same issue.
Perhaps I should remind the House of the purpose and background to the Bill, as that will make plain the reasons for my opposition. From the outset the Government have made their intentions quite clear. This Bill is an enabling measure which of itself does not reduce the redundancy rebate. However, we have been perfectly open about the fact that we intend to use the enabling power to reduce the rebate to 41 per cent. at the first opportunity. We have also been quite open about the reasons for this. A reduction in the level of rebate will have the direct effect of reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and contributing in a small way to the restoration of the economic health of the country.
As the House already knows, the Opposition amendment to require the affirmative resolution procedure to be used for subsequent orders made under the Act was accepted, and, as the Bill stands, the presentation of any order to vary rebate, whether up or down, will give the opportunity of full debate in both Houses and, indeed, such an order must have the consent of both Houses before it is passed.
However—here we come to the nub of the argument—a further amendment to allow the reduction of rebate only where the Redundancy Fund was in deficit was rejected by the House. On that occasion I reminded the House that circumstances can and do change. The present exceptionally difficult economic circumstances require equally exceptional measures to help put them right. We should not forget that this Bill is part of the Chancellor's package aimed at reducing public expenditure, and its contribution, however small, is important.
The amendment to Clause 1 is that
No order shall be made under subsection (1) above unless the Secretary of State thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period".

The amendment to Clause 2 is consequential upon the amendment to Clause 1, and its sole purpose is to maintain parity between the legislation of Great Britain and of Northern Ireland.
These amendments may be different in form from those already rejected by the House, but there is no doubt that they are intended to achieve a similar effect. We cannot now accept from another place a principle which has already been rejected by this House. For this reason alone the Government would oppose the amendments.
However, more important is the fact that these amendments are directly contrary in purpose to statements made by the Government about the proposed first use of the enabling powers. I have been quite frank with the House throughout both as to the intended use of the enabling powers and the reasons for such a use. Naturally we wish to be able to return to a situation where rebate could be increased and, as I said on a previous occasion, we look forward to the day when this will be possible, and we hope that it will be early.
For the present, however, the circumstances that I have described both on this and other occasions, make it necessary to seek to cut back the rebate at an early date. I ask the House to oppose the amendment.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I hope that the House will not accept the Minister of State's advice but will agree with the Lords in this amendment. I have been disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's negative and unhelpful attitude during the course of proceedings on the Bill, with the exception of his agreement in Committee to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure for making variations in the rebate, which was the original proposal.
Putting that on one side, the Government have adopted a negative attitude throughout. This is a reasonable and simple amendment. The Minister, when dealing with this matter in the other place, accurately described its purpose. I think that I am in order in quoting the Minister when he said that the idea and purpose of the amendment was
to ensure that power to vary rebates is used only as may be necessary from time to time


for the management of the Redundancy Fund".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 548.]
That is an eminently sensible reason for the use of the power. Indeed, the use of the power to vary the rebate for any other purpose is beginning to go away from the whole basis upon which the prime legislation was passed by this House—namely, to set up a fund financed from industry, the purpose of which was to provide help to those firms and, through those firms, to individuals who, for one reason or another, were made redundant.
What could be more reasonable than to impose in the legislation the condition that this power to vary the rebate should be used only for the management of the Redundancy Fund, not for any other outside reason? By what convoluted distortion of the purposes of the Department of Employment does the Minister come before the House to ask for the rejection of this amendment? How can one argue that this is something to do with the purposes of the Department of Employment? Will the rejection of the amendment help in dealing with the problem of redundancy? Will it make it easier for people confronted with redundancy to meet that difficulty? Will it help the firms concerned to make proper arrangements for those who are to become redundant? Of course not. Will it provide any additional power for the government regarding redundancy? Of course not. If the amendment is rejected, the Government will be able to use the Fund perhaps for purposes which Parliament did not have in mind when the Fund was originally created. If anything, rejection of the amendment will make matters worse.
If rebates to employers are reduced for reasons other than the management of the Redundancy Fund, what will be the result? An extra burden will be placed on industry, particularly on small businesses which have already made clear their repugnance towards the way that the Government propose to use these powers. Rejection of the amendment will impede the sensible redeployment of people within industry. That point was made with considerable eloquence by Lord George-Brown in another place.
It will add to the barriers facing firms which are thinking of taking on new employees because any prudent employer

now has to look at all the commitments that are being entered into if someone new is taken on. One of those commitments will be greater if the Government get their way, the Lords amendment is not accepted and, as a result, the Government produce a proposal to reduce the rebate that is accepted by both Houses of Parliament. Those circumstances would add to the future commitments of an employer when taking on extra staff.
We should examine the purpose behind the Minister from the Department of Employment coming to the House and asking it to reject this sensible and reasonable amendment. It has nothing to do with the essential functions of those Ministers. They are doing someone else's dirty work. There is little doubt that the Ministers from the Department of Employment are coming to the House at the behest of the Treasury.
The Lords amendment is being resisted by those Ministers for contradictory reasons. The Minister resisted the Lords amendment today because he said that it went against the ideas that the Government have about the use of this power. He also said that it would be against the principles which the House had established on earlier votes on the Bill. In other words, he thought that there was something of substance in the amendment which would frustrate what he believes to be the will of the Government and the House.
The Minister in the House of Lords said that the amendment should be resisted because
it does no more than add unnecessarily to the wording of the Bill".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 549.]
The Ministers should get together and make up their minds. In the Lords the argument was that the amendment does little and therefore does not matter. In the Commons the Minister says that it means something of importance which will cut the basis of the Government's approach to the legislation. I suppose that muddled thinking of that kind is not surprising in the circumstances.
Although it is, as the Minister said, a relatively small and perhaps unimportant piece of legislation, the refusal to accept the amendment illustrates much that is wrong with the way in which we


make political decisions in Government and Parliament.
The amendment makes
the management of the Redundancy Fund
the reason for varying the rebates to employers. Ministers do not want to be so constrained. They want power—and the Minister freely admitted this—to use the Fund for purposes other than those that Parliament had in mind and that it decreed in the legislation when the Fund was established. Perhaps Ministers will face some questions in the courts of they decide to go ahead and attempt to get parliamentary authority for varying the rebate in such a way that it could be argued that it was against the purposes and intention of the original legislation.
I am no lawyer, but when I read the speech by the Minister of State when he introduced the legislation I believe that it was never the intention to vary the rebate in order to produce some money as part of the package and terms agreed with the International Monetary Fund. There was nothing said about that in the original legislation. Indeed, if even the slightest suggestion had been made that the Government were seeking to set up a Redundancy Fund which they could use later as a method of injecting a small item into a package of economic measures which would convince the IMF that the Government were at last beginning to adopt a more sensible attitude towards public spending and the management of the economy, no hon. Members would have had anything to do with it. It was never in any one's mind that these powers would be put to that use.

Mr. David Mitchell: My hon. Friend referred to a small item. Does he accept that if small businesses are faced with having to make redundancy payments it is no small item? It may be the difference between continuing in business and going bankrupt.

Mr. Hayhoe: That is an important argument. Although the amount of money involved in terms of the national economy is very small indeed, the way in which this power could be used might prove to be that additional burden on a small employer that would drive him from a position of survival to one of liquidation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell), is it not the case that the absence of any arrangement whereby employers can set a sum aside to reserve to meet a contingent liability for redundancy payments, except out of already taxed profits, is a further factor which menaces a firm which is approaching the point of insolvency? Should we not have a provision in the Bill whereby sums can be set aside in reserve as a contingency for redundancy?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) makes an important point. It would be helpful if some help could come through fiscal provision from the Government towards the establishment of reserves by businesses to meet the requirements placed upon them by possible future redundancy.
It is interesting that the helpful suggestions about improving methods of dealing with redundancy are coming from this side of the House. Ministers from the Department of Employment, who should be concerned about this, are acting as errand boys for the Treasury and collecting money in a way which is improper under the Redundancy Fund legislation.
Ministers make a nonsense of dealing with public affairs. This minor item was inserted into the Chancellor of the Exchequer's package last year. They have never produced a rebuttal of our case that the proposal was a mistake anyway. It was based on an assumption last July that the Fund was running into deficit. It was decided that to avoid an extra burden falling upon public funds some changes should be made. The figures upon which these calculations were based last July were later shown to be inaccurate. It was then established that the Fund was moving not into deficit but into increasing surplus.
There might have been some justification for the Minister coming to the House and asking for powers to reduce the rebate when the Fund was sliding into deepening deficit. But there is no justification for Ministers seeking to reduce the rebate to employers at a time when the Fund is growing into a steady and increasing surplus. I think that it now probably


has a surplus of over £12 million. Perhaps the Minister will give the latest figures. However, I know of no statistics that do other than indicate that if things were left as they stand, the Fund would gradually be increased in size.
4.0 p.m.
Therefore, the Minister's proposal that he wants these powers and wants the Lords amendment resisted so that he can use the powers to reduce the rebate in order that the Fund should move even more sharply into surplus is quite wrong. The Minister is wrong to come to the House and ask for agreement to such an outrageous proposition.
I suppose that one of the reasons for this is that Ministers in the Department of Employment will not acknowledge the errors that they made a year ago, or the errors that were made by those scurrying around looking for some candle ends, important though it is to do that from time to time when in Government, and to look for some contribution to make to the package. Perhaps the Ministers are too frightened of the Treasury to acknowledge their error of last year and to come to the House and say "We made a mistake then. We should now like to forget the whole matter, and we shall withdraw the Bill", or at least "We shall accept the Lords amendment."
The Bill with the Lords amendment included might well be a measure that would command wider support in the House, because to have the power by the affirmative procedure to vary rebates is not of itself wrong. To have the power in the circumstances in which the Government are asking for it and without the restraints upon the use of that power which are implicit in the Lords amendment is something that should be denied to the Government.
Perhaps the Treasury—never renowned for its concern about parliamentary opinion—has insisted that the Department of Employment Ministers, whatever the mistakes they made earlier, must now deliver the goods that they promised, wrongly, over a year ago. I doubt whether there is one hon. Member of this House, outside the Treasury team and the doers of their dirty work, the Ministers of the Department of Employment, who would resist this sensible and reasonable amendment if it were not for the activities of the Government Whips.

I am absolutely certain that no one in the House could deploy an argument based upon the realities of the Redundancy Fund which would be an argument against the amendment.
It is, therefore, not parliamentary practice that we are seeing from the Ministers of the Department of Employment today but a pigheaded, puerile pedantry and—using Churchill's words—one that I hope up with which this House will not put. Let it vote accordingly later.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I shall be brief. I start by apologising to the House for the fact that I have to attend a Select Committee shortly and may not be able to hear the Minister's reply.
I must confess that I found the Minister's argument unconvincing. I have had something to do with redundancy rebates, long before I became a Member of the House, because I was engaged as a member of the CBI in the discussions that we had on the original Redundancy Payments Bill.
What saddens me perhaps more than anything else is the way in which this until now valuable and uncontroversial matter has been dragged somewhat into the party-political arena. It is a pity that that has happened, because up to now it has not been such a matter. Both sides of the House have recognised the value of the legislation, which was clearly the brainchild of Ray Gunter, to whom the House owes a debt of gratitude.
First, the Minister had to eat his words, because on the first occasion the House wisely threw out the Bill. It was then clearly only on the insistence of the Treasury that the Bill came back. The Committee looked into the matter and decided that if there were to be any form of change, it should at least be by the affirmative resolution procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said.
However, unfortunately the Minister, as is so common nowadays, could not accept amendments in Committee. Because the Government have no majority in Committee, they frequently run a risk, because the so-called minority parties cannot be bothered to turn up in Committee—nor, indeed, can they be bothered to turn up in the House today. Of those great supporters of the Socialist Party,


the Liberals, or those great nationalists, not a one is present today when the problem of redundancy is being discussed. They nauseate me occasionally. When the Government want support, they are glad to drag them here. When the Liberals or others want Socialist support, they are happy to have it. When it is merely a House of Commons matter, they cannot bother to turn up.
I am disturbed that what we are discussing was argued through in Committee very reasonably and argued through in another place, with some very telling arguments from some of the noble Lords who understand these matters, yet back in the House of Commons we are faced at the last moment with a starred Government motion. It may be that the Treasury had not quite realised what the other place had done. As my hon. Friend said, the Minister there used one line of argument, which was, at least, a standard line and one that is used frequently by Ministers of all Governments. That was "You do not really want to add these words. They do not mean anything, other than making it a bit longer. They are probably not drafted properly. You do not really want them."
If a Back Bencher on either side is prepared to run the risk of moving such amendments and carrying them, he then puts the Government Department, irrespective of which Government, in a very difficult position. I have done it myself on at least two occasions. The Government either have to swallow their pride and tell their draftsmen to put the matter right, or have to summon up the big battalions, saying "Although the Back Benchers may be right, we do not want it. We want none of it. Out." I fear that that is what has happened today.
From experience I should have thought that the Minister of State was a good House of Commons man. However, I do not think that he can reconcile the arguments that he used today and the words used by his representative in another place. They have two entirely different meanings. We are occasionally told that we are living in an Alice-in-Wonderland situation, but when two Ministers speaking for the same Department use two entirely different arguments, it is a bit difficult for mere mortals who are not in the exalted situation of Ministers with

their Civil Service advisers to know exactly what is meant.
The Minister would be doing a service to the House if he could at least reconcile the arguments. He might finish by saying that his noble Friend was talking rubbish or was given the wrong brief by his Department and did not really know what he was doing. They cannot both be right. One must be wrong. It would be nice if the Minister would say "I am sorry: I was wrong or my noble colleague was wrong, but the important thing is that the House of Commons is not wrong. Having heard the arguments deployed, and although the words may not be necessary, on balance we shall accept them because they are in the right spirit and are not against the intention of the Bill. They are merely adding to the safeguards that Parliament requires."
I should have thought that unless and until the Minister is translated to Great George Street, to the Treasury, which is the coffin of most people, he would be a Department of Employment man and a House of Commons man and would stand up for the rights of his Department. My hon. Friend made the very fair point that up to now the Fund has been accepted by industry as a good thing. I must warn the Minister that if he is about to use the Fund as an instrument of Government financing policy, he will not be particularly helpful to the closer dialogue between Government and industry for which the Prime Minister is asking. Industry does not want its money used for the roulette table of other Government Departments. That is really what the Minister is seeking power to do. He wants to throw the Redundancy Fund chips on the table to back some other Government Department in its mistakes.
Like my hon. Friend, I am no lawyer. However, it seems to me that it is at least a possibility—putting it no higher—that the courts, which, fortunately, are still above all of us, might hold that the original intention of the Act was being wronged by the Department if it tried to use its powers to spend money for another purpose.
Cutting through all the verbiage of what the Minister said in this House and in the other place, the fact is that the money in the Fund is not the Government's money. It is not money that they


can spend. It is wrong for the Minister to say, as he has on more than one occasion, that this is part of the public expenditure cuts campaign. That statement is rather an old record now, because it is clear that the Government are rapidly back-tracking. The Government will abolish some of the cuts that they have made to provide marvellous sweeteners to satisfy the Liberals to keep the Government in power a little longer. I hope that the Minister will reconcile the two sets of arguments and accept that there is nothing wrong with the Lords amendments.
If the Government continue to do this sort of thing, they will make industry highly suspicious of their real intentions. Then the Government will have no case for saying that industry is not supporting them. Industry is glad to support any Government who act in the national interest, but when any Government start using special funds to support other purposes, industry has the right to say: "Enough! That is not part of the deal we have tried to make with you". I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Mr. David Madel: I had hoped after all the debates we have had on the Bill that the Government would have been able to say today that they had looked at this matter again and had agreed to accept the amendment. The amendment is carefully drafted and I do not think that it affects in any way the Department's general strategy. The fourth line of the amendment states that the Secretary of State shall have
regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period.
So often when we have had these debates Ministers have referred to the Chancellor's economic measures, the general strategy and July 1976, but since then we have moved much further in general economic terms.
It is clear from newspaper reports that the International Monetary Fund will be visiting us again in the autumn and it will find that our position has changed. If the Government continue to say that we had to take this action in July 1976 because that is what the Chancellor said, they are laying far too much stress on something

that happened 12 months ago and are disregarding the fact that the economic position of the country has changed.
There has been general party agreement on redundancy payments in the 12 years since the 1965 Act. I appeal to the Government that the very least they can do is to accept the amendment and look at it again in the next Session if they wish—if the Labour Party is still in office. I hope that the Minister will tell us what is the present surplus in the Fund. In the debate in the House of Lords the Minister gave the figure of £12·7 million, which represents an increase on the figure given in earlier debates in this House.
I wish to draw attention to two points made by the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Lords on 21st June. Moving the amendment, Lady Elles referred to Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act 1975 and to Section 86(5) of the Employment Protection Act. She pointed out that before making an order varying the amounts that may be paid under those two sections, for example under the Employment Protection Act, the Secretary of State has to take account of such matters as
the general level of earnings, the national economic situation, and so on".
She also pointed out that the amendment that we are discussing closely follows Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act 1975. When replying from the Government Front Bench, Lord Wallace of Coslany told Lady Files:
The Redundancy Payments Bill should be considered on its individual merits."—[Official Report, House of lords, 21st June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 541–50.]
We need go no further than that statement.
If we accept the Minister's remarks, the words of Lords Amendment No. 1 should be carried out and the amendment accepted. The amendment is merely treating the Redundancy Rebates Bill on its merits. The example given by Lady Elles of the Social Security Act 1975 is exactly the same us what we are asking for in this amendment. Given what the Minister in the Lords said about the Bill being considered on its merits, I cannot see why the Government cannot accept the argument of their own Minister in the other place and accept the amendment.
In the last two months the Government have made many announcements about training programmes and the help that they want from industry, the money that they want industry to put into training, and the number of school leavers that they want industry to take on. I think that industry will respond to these announcements. We gave a general welcome last week to the new training measures that the Secretary of State announced, but getting support from industry is a two-way process.
I have not heard of any industry that does not accept this amendment, especially smaller industries. Would it not improve the atmosphere of co-operation with industry which the Government are seeking if they accepted the amendment? If the Government could not accept it for all time, could they not accept it for one year? We could then see whether the figure of £12·7 million remained. Let us see what requirements there are for payments out of the Fund in 1978.
4.15 p.m.
I appeal to the Government to be reasonable. It does not do the Government any good to have a party quarrel on redundancy rebates. Since 1975 the Opposition have done their level best to reach agreement with the Government on these matters. We are conscious of the important contributions that small businesses must make if we are to get more young people into jobs. If the Minister looks at the number of new businesses in Telford new town, for example, he will find that the overwhelming majority of them employ only a small number. Yet Telford is supposed to be a show town. Surely the last thing that the Government want is a new town to be struck by redundancies. Small businesses are the main prop of that town. The most sensible thing that the Government could do would be to accept the amendment as a way of further improving co-operation between the Government and industry.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Bill that the Lords amendment is designed to amend was intended to ensure that employers would contribute more if an employee was made redundant. The Lords, through this amendment, are seeking to ensure that the Government will

increase the employers' payments to the Redundancy Fund only if the Fund is short of money, and that they should not use it as an economic regulator.
I wish to put three points to the Minister. The use of the Redundancy Payments Act as an economic regulator is an abuse of Parliament. Parliament gave its approval to that legislation after spelling out very clearly the purposes which it was to fulfil. I am very critical of a number of these purposes and a number of the ways in which it operates. There should be a radical overhaul and amalgamation of a whole series of benefits, including redundancy payments, unemployment benefits, wage-related unemployment benefits and other things of that sort to help people in job transition.
Let us consider the way in which Parliament was persuaded to accept the Act. A special fund enabling payments to be made to employers when they had redundancies was established so that the strain on the employer should not be too great. I believe that the Miinster is in the position of a trustee. He is the trustee of that Fund and he must see that it is available to fulfil the purposes that Parliament had in mind when it voted for the Bill. As a trustee, he is sponsoring a provision to enable the Fund to be used as an economic regulator and not solely to provide finance for the original purpose.
I am reminded of the circumstances surrounding the Road Fund in the 1930s—when the Minister and I were very young and long before we became active in politics. There were substantial feelings of anger then when it was discovered that, rightly or wrongly, the Government of the day had raided the Fund to use the money for purposes other than those for which it was intended. The Minister is asking us today to endorse a similar approach. He wants to agree to this Fund being used for other purposes, and it is a concept which we reject. If we accept what the Minister wants and he makes an order he will, in effect, be increasing unemployment.
I wonder when the hon. Gentleman plans to put a new name over the door of his office in St. James's Square. No longer is it the Department of Employment. It is now to be the Departmen of unemployment. That is certainly the sad rôle which the hon.


Gentleman fills, and he is taking a further sorry step on that road this afternoon. He sits on the Front Bench, lonely. The House should be sorry for the hon. Gentleman. We know him as a kindly and genial man. More than anyone he he would like to see unemployment fall. But there he sits, accompanied only by two colleagues with him on the Front Bench, and with not one Labour Back Bencher present in the Chamber. He sits there lonely and isolated because his supporters dare not put their heads into the Chamber to listen to proposals which will increase unemployment.
The Government will go down in history as the Government of unemployment. I had planned to challenge Labour Members, particularly those below the Gangway, on whether we should see unemployment reach 1·5 million by August. I believe that that will be the result of the Government's policies. However, there is no Labour Member here for me to challenge. I had intended to offer them evens in a wager, and if there had been no takers, to go up to 2 to 1, and then 3 to 1. But there are no Labour Members here to take it up. Perhaps Ministers are barred by token of their office from accepting bets.
One of the ways in which the Bill will increase unemployment is by its timing. Spread across industry as a whole, it does not involve large sums of money. But for the individual employer, given the time at which he has to pay out the money, it represents a burden. No employer dismisses people frivolously. No employer likes to see idle machinery or empty workshops. An employer does not make a profit out of that. He will dismiss people only if he is in a serious financial situation. The unfortunate aspect is that just at the time that his position is at its most serious, when he has to reduce part of his labour force, he will be taking on a liability that will so reduce his cash flow that he will probably have to dismiss even more of his workers.
More firms have gone bankrupt in the last year than at any time since records were kept. The number has risen by 110 per cent. since 1972–73. Therefore, firms are getting into financial difficulties, and it is just when things are at their worst that those firms will be hurt by this legislation.
I see a parallel here with the Employment Protection Act. The Government seem to believe that if they make it more expensive to dismiss staff, the staff are less likely to be dismissed. There are many special disadvantages for an employer in dismissing someone, and so many advantages to the employee, that employers are wary of taking people on. That means that there is not the growth of new jobs that there should be.
This factor operates most severely on the small business because it is the small business which is most reliant on retained profits to enable it to keep pace with inflation and to finance its expansion. At a time of inflation, every business tends to be cash hungry. Even a village store with £4,000 of stock, requires £4,800 for the same amount of stock a year later when inflation is running at 20 per cent. A medium-sized enginering works, which has £40,000 of work in progress, will require an extra £8,000 12 months later.
Businesses constantly need more and more money to maintain the same volume of output and therefore the same number of jobs. With price control and competition artificially suppressed, they are unable to make the same profit and they are driven to borrow from the bank. The small business cannot go to the Stock Exchange for more money. Instead it relies on ploughed-back profits backed up with bank borrowing. The amount that a business can borrow from the bank depends on the value of the business. Here the Minister is warning us that he will bring in an order which will decrease the value of every business, thus decreasing the collateral which is available for bank borrowing.
A bank manager wants to know what a company's liabilities will be if it gets into trouble—for example, if the proprietor walks under a bus and the business has to be sold. Among the liabilities is the redundancy payment. Many small businesses with older proprietors realise today that their redundancy payment liabilities for long-service employees are nearly as great as their assets. I could prove that if the Minister wished me to do so.
Therefore, small businesses reliant upon bank borrowing will have a balance sheet to take to the bank which shows greater


liabilities, liabilities which are being increased as a result of the Bill. The bank will refuse to lend more money and will clamp down sooner than hitherto. When the provision comes into operation, therefore, it will result in a number of firms going bankrupt and people being thrown out of work, with further demands therefore on the Redundancy Fund.
If the Minister has not taken this point on board, the Treasury should have done so. The Minister is involved today in compounding a felony, the felony of using the Fund as an economic regulator and the felony of adding to unemployment, which is one of the worst and most sorrowful burdens that he has to bear on his shoulders.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Esmond Buhner: One of the Minister's reasons for resisting the amendment was that it came from the other place. Had it been backed by the Duke of Dorset or the Dukes of Omnium and Gatherum, there might have been some justification for that line, but it is no bad thing to recognise that there is often more varied industrial experience in the Upper House than there is here and that the content of debate there is often much more relevant
The amendment is absolutely unexceptionable. It requires the Secretary of State to take into account the size of the Redundancy Fund and any major changes in the number of redundancies before making an affirmative order. The work of the sector working parties has shown that there is an enormous amount of overmanning in British industry and that in some industries—notably shipbuilding, steel, telecommunications and textiles—there is every reason to fear massive reundancies over the next few years.
We have been told that the Fund is in surplus, but we have not been told what the call on the Fund may be. It is meaningless, therefore, to talk about a surplus if an analysis of forthcoming demand is not attempted. Therefore, if the amendment concentrates the Minister's mind on what will happen as well as what is happening, it will be wholly desirable.
However, as we have been told, the Government's purpose is to use the Fund

for other purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) has pointed out what happened to the Road Fund. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—I am sorry that he has left—argued that the Land Fund was a fiction, although Dr. Dalton, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said that it was to be a perpetual memorial to those who had fallen in war. By the mid-fifties more than £140 million was set aside for that purpose and the avaricious Treasury saw it as money on which it could lay its hands. Spurious arguments were used in the House to justify the raid.
It is increasingly difficult to see where good management ends and manipulation begins. We should do everything possible to make Ministers and the Civil Service accountable. One does not need to run even a comparatively small business to know how difficult it is to follow the movement of cash. Certainly we long ago lost control of the way in which the Treasury moves money from one Department to another.
If the Redundancy Fund were simply to become a column in the accounts to allow the Treasury maximum flexibiilty, that would lead only to greater cynicism in industry. Those who served on the Standing Committee on the Employment Protection Bill remember how proposition after proposition flowed from the Government to make labour more of a fixed cost and more expensive. It was difficult to argue that any one of those propositions was not sensible, but taken together they could only make for more unemployment.
What is happening with the Redundancy Fund bears that out. If the cash is increasing when unemployment is increasing, that can only mean that there is a far greater reluctance to take people on.

Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. Friend persuade the Minister to tell us what estimate he has made of the additional numbers who will be made unemployed by this legislation?

Mr. Bulmer: It would be helpful if the Minister answered that question. To be fair to him, my experience is that these things are not quantifiable and that the answer cannot be given. But we know in our guts, and those who run businesses


know, that an enormous wet blanket has been laid on the creative spirit of industry. Some of it was done for good reasons, but Ministers refuse to accept the consequences of their actions and to realise the truth of what we said at the time. Unfortunately, a Conservative Government will probably have to clear up that mess.
If the Government get this Bill, it is no secret that they will reduce the employer's rebate. This will be yet another burden on small business and on all business. The amendment may be a straw, but we have to consider every straw today to see which will break the back. If this one does not actually break the back, it may induce a slipped disc. Anyone who has suffered from that disability knows how immobilising it can be.
There is increasing resentment in industry at changes in the rules and this sort of unilateral reduction. An employer taking someone on up to now could have expected that if his estimate of sales was not met and he could not continue to employ so many people, he would at least get this contribution. Now he will not. But on top of that, if the redundancy is brought about by Government action—for instance, the 25 per cent. increase in VAT—that bitterness is even greater. Not only have the Government created the situation that caused the redundancy, but they have reduced the compensation.
Those of us who work in industry have the depressing feeling that not only the Government but the Civil Service have no understanding of how industry works and that in the Treasury and the Department of Industry there is no one of assistant secretary rank or above with even one year's experience in manufacturing industry. That is not a sensible way to run a country.
We want the Redundancy Fund to be just what its name suggests. We want the Government to be accountable for its use and criteria established to prevent its misuse. Since the amendment goes a small way in that direction, I support it.

Sir A. Meyer: It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We know that the intentions of the Minister of State are always good, though we are not always so confident about some of his colleagues. Much of the present unemployment and of the

additional unemployment that, alas, can be expected is due to legislation enacted with excellent intentions. Legislation that had much more questionable motives—notably the Employment Protection Act—has been and will be responsible for much more unemployment.
We see the same situation in housing. The present Government seem concerned solely with those who have a house, a tenancy, or a job and not at all with those who have no house, who would dearly love a tenancy, or who are desperate for a job. It is with that in the forefront of our minds that we should consider every item of legislation affecting employment, including the Lords amendment.
None of us will maintain that this Bill, amended or unamended, will play a major rôle in increasing or diminishing unemployment, but it will make its contribution. The effect of the Bill as it left this House, after unsuccessful attempts by the Opposition to amend it, was to introduce yet another factor of uncertainty into the calculations that employers have to make in deciding whether to take the big risk now involved in taking on extra workers. Everything that the Government do increases the risk to employers contemplating increasing their work force.
This measure made its own contribution. We on the Conservative Benches moved amendments which would have had some effect in mitigating that uncertainty, but those amendments were rejected. Now the Bill comes back to us with a very carefully drafted amendment which was made in another place and which would make a small but none the less appreciable contribution to diminishing the uncertainty. The Lords amendment is undoubtedly valuable in that connection.
If the Government are serious in what they contend the Bill is intended to achieve in its entirety, I cannot believe that they can bring themselves to reject this amendment, other than on the grounds that it comes from another place, that it was not drafted in the Department, and therefore it is unacceptable. If they are serious in their desire to ensure that this measure does not add a further aggravation to the uncertainties facing employers and to the likelihood of increasing unemployment and decreasing


job opportunities for those who desperately seek jobs, I cannot for the life of me see how they can fail to accept the amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Lords amendment appears to seek power to vary the rebate only for the management of the Rdeundancy Fund. That seems to be good economics as well as good politics, but the Minister wants to increase his political power in this rather minor matter. I say that because he cannot want bigger and wider economic powers, since those economic powers would not rest with his Department. He could have those powers only if the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Cabinet as a whole allowed him to have them. Therefore, he wants wider political power.
Why does the Minister want the power? He cannot want it to increase the rebates to employers. If that were so, he would have to ask the permission of the Chancellor if he went beyond the Fund, and in certain circumstances—in the present circumstances—he clearly would not obtain permission from the Chancellor. Therefore, the political powers that he seeks, that he thinks he might want at some time or another, are powers to reduce the rebates paid to employers.
This is where we differ from the Minister. We are entitled to do so on a number of grounds. First, the effect on youth employment of jobs not becoming available is dramatic. The more people agree with their employers to become redundant, the more jobs there are available for young men and women to come into industry.
4.45 p.m.
Therefore, if the Minister used the powers that he seeks, the first effect would be that the redeployment of labour, which is so essential, would be affected to the disadvantage of youth, on whom his Department is spending a great deal of money. The Department has rightly given a great deal of attention to the problem of youth, as have the Government as a whole and both sides of the House.
When the Government seek powers, we must assume that they might use them. The effect on employers is that they will be cautious about seeking redundancies

and trying to provide new jobs for old. Because they will be uncertain whether it will cost them more money, they may not make redundancies necessary to bring about efficiency.
One of the advantages of the Redundancy Fund is that employers who have people who are not pulling their weight—not always because they do not want to, but perhaps because their ability is less than was expected—can replace them in the interests of the firm's productivity, to the benefit of the other employees. The efficiency of the firm can be affected if the employer is put in the position of not initiating redundancy when it might be desirable.
Another effect is that the very powers sought by the Minister create a certain mental attitude in the employer, who assumes that the Fund might become a tax matter—that it is no longer just an industrial matter, no longer a Fund serving industry regardless of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must think always of the possibility of this becoming another impost upon him by the Treasury.
What about the effects on employees? There is the general effect that if rebates are reduced, the charge on taxation is not only on the employer. We sometimes tend to think that when there are increased Treasury imposts upon business and industry generally, through the Budget or some other means, they are simply a charge to the employer. In fact, they are spread across the whole of taxation so that everybody contributes. Everybody has to pay. Therefore, it affects the employee in the works through his pay packet. His taxes either cannot be brought down or, at worst, may have to be put up.
Secondly, some employees who want redundancy and who actually seek it will not get it. I do not think that the Minister himself would pretend that redundancy is simply a matter for the employer. Quite a lot of people ask the employer to make them redundant. This is very often a good thing. When an employee wants to leave because he will be paid out from the Redundancy Fund, there is no dispute about it. There is no difference of opinion even with the unions. That employee leaves, and then there are the opportunities for somebody else to come in.
I have already mentioned the effect upon the recruitment of young men, which is vital. Finally, there is the effect upon the hon. Gentleman as a Minister and upon his Department. What the Minister is providing in the Bill is an opportunity for the Chancellor and someone else to interfere with a matter which concerns the Department of Employment and the Secretary of State for Employment. Once he does that he is giving up his influence down the line with employees and employers in so far as they are concerned with labour and labour relations.
The Fund should be the concern only of the Minister and the Department. It should not be the concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Government as a whole. It should not be a matter in which they can interfere, in not accepting the amendment, the Minister is allowing—almost inviting—interference.
I cannot understand why on earth the hon. Gentleman should refuse to accept the Lords amendment. It is very sensible. The Minister may have certain reservations about it. They cannot be earth-shaking reservations. Surely it is not a principle for which he would go to the stake. There is no reason why he should not accept it, yet he is refusing to accept a simple, sensible, ordinary amendment that one would normally expect to go through the House without any difficulty at all.
I begin to wonder why. Is it a part of the Lib-Lab pact? Is this the sort of little mouse that the public is to be shown as worth paying to see as part of what is available in the Lib-Lab zoo? Is this because of some agreement that has been made with the Liberal Party, whose members are not present today?

Mr. Hayhoe: At least the Liberal Member who takes a particular interest in these matters has indicated to me that he and his party will be voting on our side when the Division comes. On this issue, certainly, the Lib-Lab pact has been well and truly broken.

Mr. Lewis: It would be very interesting, if we won this vote today, to see whether tomorrow there was a vote of confidence on this little question. The Liberal Party would then have to switch its allegiance and vote with the Government.

It just goes to show either that the Government were stupid to resist such a simple amendment, or that, if they are not stupid, they must have a reason for doing so. I think the Government are very misguided in not conceding, as so often happens when Bills go to another place, a proposal by the other place which is an improvement and would not be likely to cause any difficulty to the Government in the long run. They ought to accept it.

Mr. Fred Silvester: This poor little Bill is a strange kettle of fish. By accident of the timetable of the House and the untimely demise of the devolution Bill it has had more time on the Floor of the House than was originally intended. As a result, its subject matter has been well canvassed, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere.
Despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) has described it as a little mouse, there is at the heart of this continued debate about the amendment a very important principle which the Minister well knows, and I am a little surprised that he does not accept it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) said, there was originally an error in the accounting for the redundancy payments. Certainly there was an urgent consideration at the time of the International Monetary Fund loan. All those things have been affected by the passage of time. The Redundancy Fund is now known to be in surplus of over £12 million, and that surplus has steadily grown over the years.
The Government tell us that the economic circumstances are about to turn a corner, and that things will get better to the extent that I should have thought they could manage to find a sum of £11 million, and yet in these circumstances a very important principle is being thrown away. I am sorry to underline it because it has been said umpteen times, but it has to be said yet again.
The Redundancy Fund was set up as a kind of trust. It was a separate sum of money which was put by for a specific purpose. The parties to that agreement—the parties in industry and the parties in Government—undertook that the Fund would be available for that purpose. There have been examples, such as the


Road Fund, the Land Fund and so on, of funds being set up and raided, but that is not an excuse for the Minister to follow those bad precedents.
We are faced with a number of problems in industry and one of the most important relates to what we do when unemployment arises. This Fund is at the heart of that problem. In addition to what happens to the money, or how much money there is, we have to consider the degree of confidence that reposes within the system that we set up. The Redundancy Fund was set up with that confidence. This paltry sum is being used to break that confidence for no very good reason that the Minister has been able to put forward.
The money is not necessary for the health of the Fund, because the Fund is in surplus. It is not crucial to the Government's economic package—if it is dependent on that, the Government may as well pack up and go home now.
There is also an unfortunate side effect about which I am getting more and more anecdotal evidence. I refer to the employment drag. Firms that would previously have taken on small quantities of labour are now seriously concerned about their labour commitments. This situation arises not only from the Employment Protection Act, although I think it has been accelerated by it. We are concerned with the whole problem of the commitment which arises at the time of redundancy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basing-stoke (Mr. Mitchell) so eloquently put it, in the case of small businesses.
These are the real circumstances with which we are dealing. Everyone has complimented the Minister, nice man that he may be. I do not compliment him. Nice man or not, it is he who bears the responsibility for this decision, and this is a wrong decision. I think that in his heart the Minister knows it is a wrong decision. It may be a matter on which on some previous occasion he has had to give way for some other purpose. We have pursued it through the House time and time again. It has been rejected in the House of Lords and has now come back in another form, so that we are at it yet again.
It is a silly, squalid little measure, and I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has decided to pursue it.

Mr. Harold Walker: With the permission of the House, I shall try to reply to some of the points raised in the debate.
I find it extraordinary that such a straightforward measure, aimed at a modest reduction in public expenditure—that is the purpose which has been frankly and openly stated on so many occasions during the passage of the Bill—should have generated so much debate, and abuse at times, this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) described it as a "little mouse". If that is the case, why should we have been detained so long with so many speeches? I regret that some of those hon. Members are not here to listen to the reply that I hope to make to their points.
The amendments would have the effect of frustrating completely the intentions and purposes of the Bill. What has been overlooked in so many of the speeches is that we are not debating and discussing redundancies. We are discussing public expenditure. That is what the measure deals with. It has been overlooked that this is essentially an enabling measure.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that the only purpose of introducing an order would be to reduce the employer's rebate. When I put the Bill to the House for its Second Reading, I pointed out that the one advantage it had over the original Bill was that it would enable us to increase the rebates by order, and that we hoped to be able to do this rather more quickly than would have been the case with the previous Bill, which would have had to involve primary legislation. The Bill has the advantage of flexibility. I assure Conservative Members that it is our intention as soon as circumstances permit to introduce an order to enable employers to have bigger rebates.
5.0 p.m.
Another point that was made repeatedly, most strongly by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), was that it was quite wrong to use the Redundancy Fund in the way that we propose and that it was completely contrary to the stated purposes of the Fund and the arrangements for its administration at the outset in 1965. That ignores completely the fact that successive Governments since 1965, including the last Conservative


Government, count the surpluses and deficits of the Redundancy Fund according to the circumstances at the time, against the public sector borrowing requirement. In other words, since its inception it has been consistently used as an element in the public sector borrowing requirement. I hope that the House will not ignore that fact.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) for some of his personal remarks. I hope that they were not influenced by the fact that he and I are regular pairs. I do not believe that they were.
The hon. Gentleman was right when he said that he recognised the amendments would thwart the use of the Bill for economic purposes. He thought that the Bill should not be used for that purpose and felt that the Bill should be preserved to allow only variations in rebate to be used in connection with the management of the Fund.
I pointed out that it is our purpose to use it for economic policy purposes. I find it rather extraordinary that, despite all the public statements by Conservative Members, particularly those on the Front Bench, about the need for reductions in public expenditure, almost invariably when the Government come forward with proposals for reduction in public expenditure they oppose and attack them. I find it extraordinary particularly in this case. Conservative Members have said that we are merely carrying out the dirty work of the Treasury—as though cutting public expenditure was dirty work. I can understand that point of view from some of my hon. Friends, but I find it hard to reconcile that attitude with some of the public statements by Conservative Members.
Much has been made of what was said in another place by Lord Wallace.

Mr. David Mitchell: Does the Minister intend to deal with the point that I made about the fact that, by reducing the collateral against which small businesses can borrow from the banks, the Bill will therefore create unemployment?

Mr. Walker: I was not sure whether it was right for me to attempt that. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's point was relevant to the debate or to

the responsibilities that I have within my Department. I should like to reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said and, if appropriate, to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke among others mentioned the impact of the Bill on small businesses. Indeed, it was the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) who made the point about enabling firms, particularly small firms, to set aside reserves that would be tax free to enable them to meet redundancy contingencies as they arise. I promised that I would deal with this at some time or draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Perhaps I ought to try and deal with it now.
I understand that this point has been considered on a number of occasions. It was considered neither right nor practicable to allow companies to establish tax-free reserves in order to meet unquantifiable liabilities that might never arise. It is the view of the Treasury that because the present system already takes some account of companies' tax relief in respect of employers' earnings-related contributions, from which the Fund is financed, employers themselves should contribute to redundancy payments.
Hon. Members spoke of the difficulty that small firms might find themselves faced with in meeting the redundancy payments in view of their reduced liabilities. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen who discussed that have overlooked the provisions of Section 32 of the Redundancy Payments Act which in certain circumstances where financial difficulty arises allows the Fund to meet the whole of the employer's liability initially and for arrangements to be made afterwards that would be mutually convenient for the repayment of the employer's part that has been paid out of the Fund.

Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister confirm that all the payments into the Fund, which are used either for the rebates or, in particular instances, for the total payments of the redundancy payment, come from industry and that according to the legislation that money can be paid out only by way of redundancy payments? The Opposition have always wholly rejected the suggestion that this is something to do with public expenditure. It has not. It


has an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement, but not on public expenditure.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that the total income from the Fund is derived from employers' contributions. That is certainly true. But the hon. Gentleman must recognise that public expenditure is obviously related to the public sector borrowing requirement. It has been a practice of successive Governments to use the surpluses and deficits as an offset in one way or another against the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an element of public expenditure.
Conservative Members made much of what was said in another place by my Noble Friend Lord Wallace, speaking on behalf of the Government. For obvious reasons we have searched carefully for reasons why we might let the amendment stand. We are not opposing the amendment merely for the sake of doing so, or because it comes from another place.
My only reference to the fact that the amendment came from another place was that it came into direct conflict with the principle that this House already established and that it came into conflict with the previous amendment of the Opposition, which we had rejected. It is not the case that we want to oppose the amendment for opposition's sake. We searched carefully to see whether we could allow it to stand, because we were anxious to see progress on the Bill. We examined the amendment's effect extremely carefully.
The firm legal advice that is now tendered to me, in the light of the examination since Lord Wallace spoke in another place, is that the amendment would frustrate one of the main purposes of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) mentioned the parallel provisions of the Social Security Act 1975. As my noble Friend said in the other place, it would not seem inappropriate to follow the precedent of the Social Security Act. It would be wrong to confuse the present Bill and the use to which it will be put in the first instance with the provisions of an Act related to the collection of contributions.
Reference was also made of the fact that the Opposition Front Bench spokes-

man, moving the amendment in the other place, referred to the provisions of Section 86(5) of the Employment Protection Act. What the amendment ignores is the criterion laid down in the Employment Protection Act—that the Secretary of State, in adjusting the level of payment, shall have regard to the national economic situation. It is right that we should have regard to the national economic situation.
Notwithstanding what my noble Friend Lord Wallace said and what has been quoted, I would point out that on 28th June, during discussion on the consequent amendment to ensure consistency in the Northern Irish legal position with that of Great Britain, my noble Friend said
I am bound to make it clear that the Government remain opposed to the principle underlying these Amendments, which are directly contrary to statements made about the intended first use of the enabling power to effect a reduction in rebate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28th June 1977; Vol. 384, c. 1042.]
I quote those words because it was suggested that there was a contradiction between what my noble Friend said in the other place and what the Government have said in the debate today. Those words show clearly that there is no inconsistency between us.
This Bill should be considered on its individual merits, and I have emphasised so often throughout its passage that we have been at pains to explain the reasons underlining it and the use to which it will be put.
At no time can we foresee circumstances in which the enabling power would be used without reference to the Fund and the demands that will be made upon it. The prudent administration of public money demands that we keep a careful watch on these matters. Ultimately the final determination remains with Parliament under the affirmative procedure.
The amendment would defeat the purpose of the Bill, if the wording is intended to mean that the power to vary the rebate may be used only as a management power, irrespective of other considerations, such as the state of the economy as a whole. My advice is that the purpose of the Bill, which was approved by both Houses on Second Reading, would be frustrated by the amendment. Therefore, I ask the house to reject the Lords amendment.

Question put, That the House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 130.

Division No. 188]
AYES
[5.12 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English, Michael
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Newens, Stanley


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Ovenden, John


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Padley, Walter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ford, Ben
Palmer, Arthur


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Forrester, John
Park, George


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Parry, Robert


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr John
Radice, Giles


Bray, Or Jeremy
Golding, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gould, Bryan
Robinson, Geoffrey


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hardy, Peter
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hatton, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Cartwright, John
Janner, Greville
Silverman, Julius


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spriggs, Leslie


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Stallard, A. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Conlan, Bernard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stoddart, David


Corbett, Robin
Lambie, David
Stott, Roger


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn, Harry
Strang, Gavin


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crawshaw, Richard
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cronin, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tuck, Raphael


Cryer, Bob
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Maclennan, Robert
Ward, Michael


Deakins, Eric
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Madden, Max
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Dempsey, James
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Dormand, J. D.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Woof, Robert


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mikardo, Ian



Dunn, James A.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Dunnett, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Frank R. White and


Edge, Geoff
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Mr. James Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jopling, Michael


Arnold, Tom
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kershaw, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Banks, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knight, Mrs Jill


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
Lamont, Norman


Benyon, W.
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lawson, Nigel


Biffen, John
Freud, Clement
Le Merchant, Spencer


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bottomley, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
 Griffiths, Eidon
Macfarlane, Neil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hampton, Dr Keith
Marten, Neil


Brooke, Peter
Hannam, John
Mather, Carol


Brotherton, Michael
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Buck, Antony
Hawkins, Paul
Mawby, Ray


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Henderson, Douglas
Mills, Peter


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hodgson, Robin
Miscampbell, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Monro, Hector


Crowder, F. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)




Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Rifkind, Malcolm
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neave, Airey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tebbit, Norman


Newton, Tony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nott, John
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Thompson, George


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Salisbury, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D.


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pardoe, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Viggers, Peter


Penhaligon, David
Shepherd, Colin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Silvester, Fred
Weatherill, Bernard


Pink, R. Bonner
Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)



Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speed, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhodes James, R.
Spence, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stainton, Keith
Sir George Young.


Ridsdale, Julian
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 2 disagreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. John Golding, Mr. Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Fred Silvester, Mr.

A. W. Stallard, and Mr. Harold Walker; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the Minister to move the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, I should point out to the House, as other occupiers of the Chair have had to do on similar occasions in the past, that the scope of the debate is fairly narrow. All that the order seeks to do is to continue in existence for a further period the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. While, therefore, it will be in order to argue that one or more of those Acts ought to continue because of what is in them, the Chair would be bound to check any argument that the Acts ought to be amended or extended to cover matters that they do not at present cover.
With the exception of a few minor provisions, the Acts relate entirely to matters of discipline. References to other detailed subjects affecting Service life or to general defence policy would be quite out of order.

5.28 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): I beg to move,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts for a further year—that is to say, until 31st August next year.
The House will recall that the Armed Forces Bill 1975, when introduced into the House, provided for the abolition of the annual continuation order. It was considered at the time that a number of alternative opportunities to debate the affairs of the Services existed and that the abolition of the continuation order would save valuable parliamentary time.
However, during the Second Reading debate a number of right hon. and hon. Members voiced concern at the prospective loss of this opportunity to discuss Service disciplinary matters. The Committee on the Bill shared that concern and amended the Bill to provide for the retention of this annual continuation

order debate. The order was to be considered in the summer—rather than in the autumn as in the past—so that it could be linked with a general debate on defence matters. The Bill received Royal Assent on 26th October 1976 and it included that provision. This is, therefore, the first occasion upon which a continuation order has been moved since the Armed Forces Act 1976 came into force.
I am seized of the tightness with which the rules of order bind us on this occasion and I do not seek to make a long speech about the essence of the order or about what it implies. It might be of convenience to the House if I sought to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I could seek to reply then to any points that may have been raised by hon. Members.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: On this occasion the Opposition wish to join with the Minister of State in supporting the motion for the continuance of discipline in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
The standards of discipline that are required of Britain's Armed Forces are, rightly, second to none in the world. I know that in all quarters of the House there will be agreement that our Armed Forces fully live up to the expectations imposed upon them by Parliament and our people in circumstances that are frequently hazardous and trying. Our Armed Forces have earned for themselves a splendid reputation and it is no exaggeration to say that no army from anywhere else in the world could have acquitted itself with the honour and reputation that the British Army has achieved in its handling over some nine to 10 years of the critical situation in Northern Ireland. On behalf of the Opposition I wish to pay tribute to the courage and devotion to duty of the Armed Forces in spite of all the difficulties and hazards that have been in their way.
We should bear in mind—and this is a matter that bears directly on military discipline—that more than any other section of the community the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland have long hours and that involves them in substantial family separation. It is not only the Army in Northern Ireland, because, of course, the Air Force is also involved there. RAF helicopter pilots are sent


from Odiham on a six weeks in, six weeks out basis and Royal Marines are also involved. One cannot ignore that and dissociate the military discipline to which they are subjected from their pay and conditions.
It was a basic part of the military salary concept that the Armed Forces should have full comparability with their civilian counterparts in matters of pay specifically to make up for the fact that they are subjected to military discipline while other sections of the community are not. Indeed, that was so far taken into account—and required to be taken into account—by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body when it was established that there was the addition of the so-called "X" factor which, as the Secretary of State informed us the other day, is reckoned at 10 per cent. That is notionally a 10 per cent, increase on comparable pay in civilian life. However, the Armed Forces today not only do not receive that 10 per cent, increase over and above what is comparable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather outside the bounds of what we are discussing.

Mr. Churchill: While I should not in any way seek to controvert your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I respectfully submit that, since a major part of the maintenance of military discipline relates to the maintenance of a high standard of morale among Her Majesty's Forces, that also means that there is a difficulty when the Armed Forces are subjected to a situation in which they have wholly lost comparability with the civilian sector and when they are required under the code of military discipline to respond to orders to work for 100 nours or more a week, particularly in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, such as on the high seas. This matter also affects personnel in the RAF.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I drew to the attention of the House the fact that we are not discussing general matters of Service life. This is purely a question of discipline.

Mr. Churchill: I fully accept that we are here to discuss discipline, but I find it difficult to imagine that the various matters that directly impinge on discipline can in no way be touched upon. For

example, the incidence of Armed Forces personnel having cheques bouncing or becoming involved in matters that directly involve breaches of the code of military discipline which arise specifically from the pressures put upon them by their pay and conditions—and one would have hoped that this was something—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said a moment ago that references to other detailed subjects affecting Service life, or to general defence policy, would be quite out of order.

Mr. Churchill: I shall certainly accept your guidance on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. None the less, there are aspects of the military discipline code that are currently in danger of being infringed and that are, indeed, being infringed as a result of the circumstances to which we are not allowed to make reference in this debate. It has reached the point where in certain units there are privates and non-commissioned officers who are already making representations for the redress of grievances under Queen's Regulations—and that is something that they are specifically entitled to do—about matters of pay, to which I shall no longer make reference.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you saying that the House should avoid the matter of Service pay altogether? There is no way in which—and I put this to you with the utmost respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we can seek to impose discipline upon many thousands of men and women and to impose a disciplinary code that is unique to the Armed Forces and applies to no other part of national life unless we can also consider, perhaps in passing, their other conditions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House of what I recently said. Reference to other detailed subjects affecting Service life or to defence policy would be quite out of order.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely take your point that we do not want a free and wide-ranging debate on the general aspects of Service policy. However, there must be aspects


of Service policy that affect disciplinary matters and surely hon. Members on both sides of the House must be allowed to refer to those matters to the extent that they impinge on Service discipline.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have with me Mr. Speaker's rulings going back for some years. This has always been a narrow debate and, in fact, on the last occasion that it came before the House the motion went through on the nod.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you reconsider your decision in view of what has been said? After all, these men are serving the country in extremely difficult circumstances. The separation from their families and such minor remuneration as they receive is part and parcel of their lives. Must that not affect this debate on discipline? I say this with great respect. There have been times when such matters have been reconsidered and I wonder whether, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would consider thinking about it again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am asked to reconsider the matter. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the precedents that are well-established and appear in Hansard on many occasions. I should be quite out of order to take it upon myself to go contrary to those precedents.

Mr. Peter Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am concerned and uncertain about the position. Fortunately, we have no mutiny in the Fleet or riot in the Army, and nor are we likely to have such occurrences, but discipline in the Forces includes an obligation not to question the terms of pay and conditions. Service men are not able to hold a conference at Tynemouth or anywhere else to consider their terms of pay. This is part of the disciplinary procedures. Is it not possible to raise the broader question of discipline of the Forces in so far as it affects the fact that Service men must accept their conditions of pay unquestioningly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are general debates on the Services and it appears that they would be the occasions on which to deal with such matters. I recall that we were dealing with exactly those points not many days ago. I ask the House to

confine itself to what is in the order and not to matters outside it.

Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to precedents and you will be aware that this debate has been going on annually in one form or another for more than 300 years. It has traditionally been regarded as an opportunity for the House to exercise control over the discipline and activities of the Armed Forces of the Crown. I am not questioning the right of the Chair to make new departures, but I submit that it is a new departure for the House not to have the opportunity of discussing matters that are directly related to military discipline.
I do not believe that any of my colleagues seeks to go wide of what is on the Order Paper. The motion relates to military discipline and, provided that we stick to what is on the Order Paper and relate our remarks specifically to military discipline, I do not see how this could be regarded as being out of order. Looking back at debates over the past four or five years, I see that there have been frequent interventions from the Chair and injunctions not to take the debate too wide, but references have been permitted to matters that are directly related to discipline.
I ask you to reconsider your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because otherwise it appears that this business must go through on the nod and it is of such importance to the Armed Forces and to the nation that many of us would feel that the House had done itself an injustice if that were to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand the position, the narrow debate that we are having is whether the Acts should be renewed for one year.

Mr. Churchill: That is correct. We are debating whether the Acts should continue for another year. I do not believe that there is any basic dispute between the two sides of the House on this matter. However, we are surely entitled to refer to matters directly impinging on that discipline. If not, we are wasting our time. Naturally it suits the convenience of the Minister to have business go through on the nod, but that is not what we were sent here for.

Dr. Gilbert: There has been no change of precedent on this matter under this Government or previous Governments. My Conservative predecessor as Minister of State was under exactly the same contraints as I am. I have a binder full of information that it would be in order to discuss. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) has not consulted the precedents or is so incompetent that he cannot keep within the rules of order, that is his fault. If anyone is detaining the House, it is he.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a long time since I was in the Army, but my recollection is that stoppages of pay are regarded as a matter of discipline and on that basis my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) may be in order. I ask you to reconsider the situation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to look at, for example, the 1972 debate, he will find enunciated there, after a review of debates that have taken place over a number of years, precisely the principles that I am enunciating.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Precedent has no bearing on this debate because we are in an unprecedented situation for the Services, especially in regard to their pay. If we do not ventilate this matter because we have not done so in the past, it is entirely meaningless for the Government to put the order before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am a servant of the House. All that I can do is to work within the orders that have been set out for my assistance. I can do only what the House has asked me to do, and that is what I am trying to do.

Mr. Churchill: The Minister took me to task and explained that both his pre-decessors and mine had traditionally accepted that these motions should go through on the nod. He accused me of not doing my homework, but he cannot justify that. Perhaps he would care to refer to the 1972 debate in which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who was the Opposition spokesman, said:

It has been regarded for many hundreds of years that this debate is one of the opportunities for the House to exercise its control over the Armed Forces. It is difficult to understand how that can be done unless we assume, as it has been assumed in the past, that matters concerning pay, conditions, recruitment and terms of engagement are related to discipline … I do not know how that is possible if the sort of speech which the Minister has begun to make is not in order.
Later, he said:
All of us are in some difficulty on this first occasion of debating the amalgamated discipline Acts. Therefore, like the Minister of State, I shall make only part of the speech I would otherwise have made."—[Official Report, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 704–7.]
He referred in detail to recruiting, re-engagement, morale, and the pay review body in a speech that took up eight columns of Hansard.
If we are imposing a strict code of military discipline on the men and women of our Armed Forces, we should be able to discuss any justifiable grievances that they may have that directly impinge on the code of discipline.
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on previous occasions, going back at least for the past five years, we have been able to have some modicum of debate on matters relating directly to discipline in the Armed Forces. If your ruling is so narrow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we cannot even refer to disciplinary matters, I am at a loss to understand the purpose of the debate. It is something that the Armed Forces will find difficult to understand. They will be faced with the fact that the House is passing through this piece of legislation requiring them to be subject to Queen's Regulations for another 12 months without considering the grievances that they have made clear in recent weeks. It is a matter of great regret. We owe an apology to those who serve in the Armed Forces with such distinction, those long-suffering—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the debate has been held in the House again and again and that there is ruling after ruling on this issue. For example, in 1965 Mr. Speaker ruled:
This debate is very narrow. It may have been broadened … but the right hon. Gentleman is right in assuming that to raise other matters would not be in order."—[Official Report, 13th December 1965; Vol. 722, c. 973.]


I could give the hon. Gentleman a whole series of similar rulings. There is no more apology that needs to be given to the Armed Forces this year than on any of the other occasions.

5.52 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Consideration of the order by this honourable House should be very much more than a formality. It should not be approved in present circumstances, and I shall consider, by listening to the debate, whether I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.
The order should not be passed in present circumstances for a particular reason. We are being asked to authorise the Secretary of State and the Government to impose for a further 12 months a code of discipline that is unique in our national life. It applies to nobody except the Armed Forces. I am not saying anything against the code. It is an admirable code. It is entirely necessary for the conduct of the Forces and it is completely understood by both officers and men in the three Services. That can be said without any doubt.
The code is justly, fairly and reasonably administered within the Forces. I do not think that there is any question about that. It is not too much to say that the code produces the pride in the Services that is the characteristic of the men and women in our Armed Forces. It produces the individual loyalty to ship, squadron or regiment. It produces an Army, Navy and Air Force that are the envy of most of our partners in NATO. As has been already said, they are admired wherever they go throughout the world.
It is not fair to impose this discipline upon Service men unless they are properly rewarded for their service. It means that under the code that we are asked to renew, soldiers, sailors and airmen are in a completely different category from any other person employed in the United Kingdom, including any other category of public servant or Government employee.
The plain fact is that any other employed person has a means of effectively representing any disadvantages under which he or she believes himself or herself to be suffering. It seems that just about anyone in England can resort to

withdrawal of labour, or what is euphemistically called industrial action. Recent events have seen that state of affairs existing de facto among groups that are theoretically or legally unable to withdraw their labour. I appreciate that I should be immediately out of order if I were to refer more than just in passing to the postal workers and the Grunwick dispute. This is not the moment to discuss whether the state of affairs that 1 have mentioned is good or bad. whether it is for better or worse for the nation. The only point that I am making is that the Services are in a unique and special position.
That being so, a particular responsibility towards them lies on the shoulders of the Secretary of State, who is not here, and on the Minister of State and other Ministers representing the three Services. Those Ministers are, so to speak, the only friends in court of Service men and Service women. It is my submission that Ministers are not fulfilling that duty towards Service men and women. I am not so worried about the conditions of service day by day within the Armed Forces. To a large extent, those conditions are within the control of the commanding officers and the officers of the Service units.

Mr. John Cronin: There is a small correction that should be made to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks. He said that Ministers are the only friends in court of serving officers and personnel of the Armed Forces. I think that he will agree that hon. Members on both sides of the House have very much in mind the interests of those concerned.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to do our duty but we are suffering a slight impediment in carrying it out. I think exactly as the hon. Gentleman in this respect. We should be here to represent our views in accordance with our duty. As you understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, some of us are at a loss to understand why we should find it so difficult.
The training of officers involves great emphasis upon concern for the welfare of their men. That is drummed into officers from the earliest days of their training. It is always pointed out to


them that it is the men who are the greatest single factor, not weapons or technicalities. Conditions of service are under the control of individual officers, with the exception of pay and allowances. Those matters are clearly not within the control of uniformed officers. Only the Government have control. I believe that the Government are not playing fairly at present.
This subject was recently debated. The debate on the generalities, and especially on pay within the Forces, has not received enough attention from the Government. We have not had an adequate answer from the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not part of the order that we are discussing.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: With the utmost respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is discipline that we are discussing. That is what I am keen to discuss. I am anxious to keep in order in doing so.
Discipline is directly related to the attention that conditions and discipline within the Forces receive, especially from the media. You know and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how men within a ship who are cut off from outside contact are extremely interested or thrilled when some attention is paid to their pay, disciplinary conditions and other conditions by the media or by us in this House.
I was saying that the debate on the broader issues has not received sufficient attention from the Government, from the Secretary of State or from the Prime Minister. Not enough fuss was made by the Opposition. Only two Government Back Benchers spoke. I believe that no Liberals or nationalists spoke.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may want to say about Service life, only discipline is relevant to the debate.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The debate that we had about Service conditions, including discipline, which was the most important aspect of it, did not receive enough attention from the Opposition Benches to keep the debate going throughout the day. I very much regret that fact.
Much more telling than anything else in this context was the remark made by the

commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion Light Infantry in Northern Ireland faced with the difficult problem of maintaining discipline within his unit when it went to Northern Ireland and came under fire from a sniper on its first day there. He said "The Government get a better Army than they deserve". That was a much more telling remark than anything that I could say either in or out of order this afternoon.
I understand that we must not go over the debate on Forces' pay. However, we know that it has not kept pace on a comparability basis with other workers. The Secretary of State and the Government know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already given a ruling on that subject. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman heard it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, 1 heard it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I entirely take your point. I was concluding that part of my speech by saying that the Government are sheltering behind the skirts of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is not doing its job properly.
Turning to another subject and keeping strictly in order, I am not one who wants more industrial muscle within the forces by way of trade unions. Nor do the Service men themselves want that. I am sure I am right in saying, because my bamboo wires still work, that Service men do not want anything like that.
I am not one who thinks that morale is bad in the Armed Forces. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have tended to say, when making points about pay, which we must not do now, that the morale of the Armed Forces is bad. I do not think that it is. From recent observance, I believe that it is marvellously good given all the circumstances. It is not yet bad. It is still amazingly good. It is a great tribute to the Armed Forces.
However, any serving or retired officer knows what is in the minds of our Service men and women. The Secretary of State and his Ministers must know that the Government are not playing fair with our Armed Forces. The nation must ask itself the simple question "Are we being fair to our Service men?" The answer is "No.".
Men and women go into the Armed Forces not for profit but to do a worthwhile job under the disciplinary conditions that we are discussing today. Even if they cannot be rewarded generously, they should be rewarded fairly, but they are not. Until they are, I do not think that this disciplinary code should be imposed upon them. Therefore, I am opposed to the order.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Robert Banks: I listened with great care and attention to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), who deployed his points with great skill and perhaps with some difficulty in view of the confines of the discussion, which we understand. However, contrary to my hon. and gallant Friend, I support the order, which renews the provisions of the Acts governing disciplinary conduct for each of the three services.
Discipline is the corner-stone in each of our three Services. It is very much to their credit that discipline is held so high and is so successful in the Services. We have only to look at the conduct of our Forces in Northern Ireland to realise that we are resting on the benefits of discipline properly executed and carried out. I think that we should specifically consider the officers and non-commissioned officers who enforce discipline. After all, it is important that discipline is neither too harshly nor too leniently applied. When we consider all three Services, but with particular reference to Northern Ireland, we can appreciate that the recipe is right. The leadership given by our officers and non-commissioned officers is second to none in the way that discipline is carried out.
In referring to Northern Ireland, I think that as a by-product of discipline and conduct there we should pay tribute to our Forces for their immense patience and steadiness amid all the anxieties and difficulties with which they have to deal. It must be a difficult task for men who have suffered the loss of a companion or fellow officer who has become the victim of the cruel and vicious activities in Northern Ireland. It is the discipline within our Armed Forces that enables them to sustain those losses and to carry on with their job unaffected by them.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who were fortunate enough to see

Her Majesty's review of the Fleet at Spit-head will, I am sure, have come away with the distinct impression that the discipline, which was so evident, is as good as it has ever been and that the Royal Navy put on an immensely valuable and impressive show.
Those who visited the ships at anchor in the review will have been impressed by the amazing smartness of the ships and the general well-being and good spirits of our sailors. It is some time since there have been any difficulties in the Fleet. Of course one recalls the mutiny at Spit-head, but that was many years ago. It is a source of great pride that the Fleet is so well conducted. I cannot think of any particular disciplinary problems that have arisen. That, to my mind, is one reason for wanting to ensure that the present standards of discipline are continued. Therefore, I think that the order should be approved today.
I referred to discipline as being fundamental to the the three Services. But it is also fundamental to the conduct of civilians who are covered by the Acts in regard to secret information, which is vital to all our Services and to the security of the country. It is immensely important that our secret information is kept secret and that we take all necessary precautions to ensure proper discipline is exercised to prevent possible spy activities.
The discipline governing the morale and actions of those serving in our Armed Forces is only one aspect of the general conduct that evolves from it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester referred fleetingly to pay and conditions in the Services. Of course, pay and conditions are as important as discipline. It is for the Government to ensure that the areas referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are appreciated and that we understand that a breakdown of discipline could occur if the general and reasonable demands of our Forces were not heeded.
The general conditions governed by these Discipline Acts are another aspect of service in the Armed Forces. I propose to refer particularly to service in the Royal Navy. Conditions have got better and better. Some of the old discipline sections would not necessarily apply now. The general conditions on board ship have greatly improved. I


speak from having served on board ship and slept in hammocks. Ships now have cabins and bunks and generally better accommodation than in the old days. I hope that these better conditions, which have contributed to the good discipline of the Forces, are not brought in at the sacrifice of the weaponry that we necessarily need in our ships.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might develop that part of his argument on another occasion.

Mr. Banks: Undoubtedly the general conduct which is so good in our Forces—in particular in the Royal Navy—rests not only on discipline but on the conditions for which the discipline was designed. With the change of conditions, we must be careful that we do not sacrifice any of the Navy's fighting power. That is what discipline is really about. It is about having the crew ready and willing, in a state of anticipation to fight off any aggression and to use the ship to its fullest. Our Forces are an example to others throughout the world. Undoubtedly the discipline which is the cornerstone of that high standard is something that other nations will need to study carefully if they are to reach our standards.
I turn now to the Discipline Acts themselves. I should like to speak about courts martial. Many people believe that a court martial is a rather amateur approach to the way in which the defendant is defended. He is defended by a friend and officer, perhaps from his own ship or regiment. The system works extremely well. There is a good appeals procedure. We have a system of corrective investigation which decides what punishment is applicable and which works with fairness. I have always believed that fairness is the most essential part of discipline. It has to be applied in a straightforward and organised way. That is what courts martial achieve.
Many crimes are committed in the Forces. The one that stands out in the Navy is that of sleeping on watch. It carries a sentence of imprisonment. Anybody who is found sleeping on watch damages his own reputation and that of the part of the ship for which he is responsible. That crime could also have a devastating effect on the ability of the

ship to carry out its tasks. I am thinking of navigation through difficult waters, dealing with a fishing problem or with an aggressive situation involving an enemy submarine, for instance. There is no doubt that sleeping on watch is the most heinous of crimes. I can think of a number of people who might have been found guilty of that and who would never again be caught asleep wherever they were.
Another crime is that of neglect of duty. Sleeping on watch is part of that neglect. All Service men have a duty to keep awake when on duty. The offence of neglect of duty is punishable by dismissal with disgrace. I cannot think of anything worse than being dismissed with disgrace.
A Service man may also be charged with conduct which is to the prejudice of naval discipline. There are various scales of punishment for that. Loss of pay is the punishment which affects the soldier, sailor or airman most. His pay is vital to him and his family, and he may lose some of it for a minor offence. For instance, a Service man might return late from being on shore or on vacation. He would then be brought up before the first lieutenant. His case might be taken to the captain's table, to the adjutant and on to the commanding officer's table.
Losing a day's pay is a real penalty these days because pay is now so important in the Forces. There is so little of it. Considering the many tasks that Servicemen have to perform, including serving in Northern Ireland, pay rates fall well below those that one might expect outside the Services. To lose one or two days' pay is a severe discipline.
A Service man might also be disciplined by being disrated. Pay comes into this because a Service man receives less pay for the lower rate. That would have an effect on his family. The wife of a Service man might feel somewhat disgruntled because of today's conditions. The wife of a Service man has to put up with many vicissitudes. Her husband might be sent on an assignment to Northern Ireland, for instance. That puts a strain on the family.
The Discipline Acts ensure the welfare of the Serviceman and his family. That is another reason for wanting the order to be approved. The welfare of our Service men and their families is important. The


way in which their problems are tackled by civilians and officers who advise and look after Service men during periods of difficulty is a corner-stone of discipline.
A Service man might conduct himself well on most occasions, but there might be a time when things go wrong. For instance, he might get into difficulties with housing. Many Servicemen have problems when they let their homes and cannot get the tenants out. A wife might not be able to cope with a child in a hotel. Under those circumstances, the other side of the coin comes into play.
The Service man knows that he can rely on his officers to ensure that all the available assistance will be given to him. That is part of the fairness of discipline. A Service man might have been exemplary, but he knows that when things are not good for him he can rely on the discipline providing a solution by means of welfare assistance.
We must reflect on the Discipline Acts to ensure that they move with the times. We must ensure that they are fairly and reasonably carried out. That depends on the officer and non-commissioned officer structure. They must take a sensitive and sensible approach to the Acts. I have no doubt that they will always continue to carry out these tasks fairly and properly.
We must ensure that the training of our officers involves leadership and discipline. I am sure that it does and that it will continue to do so. It is important that we should not lose sight of the importance of ensuring that discipline is fully maintained and understood. The understanding of discipline is important. For instance, if there is difficulty on board a ship, the lower deck is cleared and the riot act is read. That is a pretty salutary experience for everyone on board, because everyone understands the consequences that his actions will bring about under the Discipline Acts. When men know that, they know the whole picture and the result that will occur if their actions are contrary to the Discipline Acts. It is the transmission of this formation, which is itself a part of the Discipline Acts, that is of such vital importance.
We see our Forces today at a high standard of condition. I think that during this debate we can congratulate all our

Forces on the excellent way in which they conduct themselves and on the way in which they have shown that they apply discipline in exactly the right way. This is shown whenever there is a parade or a review, and when there is a difficult task that needs to be taken care of, the Forces rise to the occasion. It is the discipline, morale and spirit that always bring them through on top.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: It is always useful for us to have a debate on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts. It is somewhat infrequent for us to have a debate of this nature. These Acts put a certain section of the population under very different conditions legally from those of the rest of the population. Therefore, it is always helpful to examine the Acts in the House.
I am rather surprised, however, that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) should try to introduce the question of pay into this discussion and to indicate dissatisfaction with the pay of the Armed Forces.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have looked at the Army Act 1955 rather carefully, and if you will look at Section 151 you will find that it might be of interest to the House. I have no doubt that you have it before you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not have the 1955 Act before me, but I shall look at a copy shortly. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman could help me.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: The order refers to the Army Act 1955. I have discovered what the "b" in brackets means. It relates to Chapter 18, Section 151—"Deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child". I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have had the opportunity of seeing it. It seems to me of great importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What I have had the opportunity of seeing is the reports of earlier debates on similar orders. I have repeated the rulings that have been given by those occupying the Chair on previous occasions. As long as those precedents are left as they are, I do not think


I can say anything that can alter what I have already said.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Precedent is always of interest and importance in these matters, but, of course, the discretion remains, as it always does, with the Chair. When one consults precedents, one should also consult the relevant section of the Act. To my mind, Section 151 of the Army Act 1955 is something that should be brought to your attention immediately.

Mr. Churchill: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may draw your attention and that of the House to the third paragraph on page 743 of "Erskine May", which states,
By the procedure laid down in the legislation of 1955, Parliament, in addition to their control over the number of the naval, military and air forces, and the yearly sums to be appropriated for their support, reserve to themselves the power of determining whether a standing army shall be kept in being in time of peace.
It would appear from that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be in order to discuss whether we should have Armed Forces at all, what size they should be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This only shows how important it is to deal with one point of order at a time. Perhaps I can deal with them in reverse order. The point raised by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) would not arise under this order. As to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder), I have already allowed those matters to be dealt with in a peripheral way, and I think that we cannot take them any further.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Cronin: It was certainly interesting to have the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: And Northwood. Northwood would never forgive the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cronin: I apologise. And Northwood—principally, if necessary. The

hon. and learned Member's intervention rather emphasised the point I was making. That was that I was rather surprised that Opposition Members should have attempted to make this debate an opportunity for raising the whole question of the pay and conditions of service of the Armed Forces. I have taken part in these debates for over 20 years. I cannot recollect any previous occasion when anyone has attempted to raise the general question of pay in any debate on the Discipline Acts.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Casting his mind back over those 20 years, can the hon. Gentleman ever remember an occasion when it was so necessary to do so?

Mr. Cronin: I shall address myself to that point in a few moments, but I give the hon. and gallant Member the short answer that I certainly do not think that it is necessary to do so now.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Without in any way seeking to question your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may say that, if the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) casts his mind back, I think he will remember that up to a few years ago these debates ranged much wider, although it is true that they have not done so over the last few years.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should tell the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) that I have had the privilege of looking at the report of the debate in 1972, in which he took part. I think he will find that it was not very different then from what it has been more recently.

Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) also wants to raise questions of pay in this debate. I agree that on previous occasions the debate has ranged quite widely, but not in such an erratic way on a matter that is completely out of order. I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Members should take this attitude. It indicates a sort of a naivety about parliamentary affairs which is hardly consistent with an intelligent representation of the affairs of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Churchill: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to what his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said on 30th November, 1972. The right hon. Member said:
I turn now to a subject which, though related to recruiting, is palpably related to discipline, because it is related to morale. It concerns the pay of Her Majesty's Forces. The Minister of State will recall that the Pay Review Body set up by his Government reported in April and in the last paragraph of its report both summarised the present pay position and made suggestions about the future."—[Official Report, 30th November 1972; Vol. 847, c. 711.]
He then went on to speak, with no interruption from the Chair or the opposite side of the House, for a period that required four columns in Hansard on the question of pay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman say that this was in 1972?

Mr. Churchill: That is correct.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the end of those four columns, I think that the hon. Member will find a very clear ruling by the Chair, which was exactly the same as that which has been given today.

Mr. Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to you, at the end of those four columns the debate was interrupted by Royal Assent, and the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Spark-brook, was able to complete all his remarks in relation to the pay of the Armed Forces without being brought to order by the Chair in any way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at col. 704, I think he will find all the rulings set out there.

Mr. Churchill: None the less, it was after that that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever may or may not have happened after that ruling was given, that is the ruling that I have tried to give today.

Mr. Cronin: I think that all hon. Members have a very high opinion of the integrity of the hon. Member for Stretford, but if he quotes something from Hansard of 1972 as representing a reason

or a precedent for discussing pay and conditions, and then fails to quote from that same document that it was ruled completely out of order—

Mr. Churchill: It was not.

Mr. Cronin: —the hon. Gentleman will get a reputation for being disingenuous.

Mr. Churchill: In the debate to which I referred, there was no ruling by Mr. Speaker after the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook had made that statement. Mr. Speaker's ruling came within the first five minutes of the debate. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was not interrupted or ruled out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can hardly regard that as a precedent that I could follow today. The precedent that I follow is the one I have quoted from column 704.

Mr. Cronin: I become more and more puzzled by the nit-picking attitude towards parliamentary procedure adopted by Opposition Members. In the Opposition, we have a group of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who seriously represent themselves as an alternative Government, but they are adopting bogus methods of trying to achieve changes in the conditions of service of the Armed Forces. I cannot imagine that this augers well for the future, if by any chance there were to be a Conservative Government in the distant future.
What upsets me is that although those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are shedding tears about the conditions of pay in the Armed Forces, they are obviously crocodile tears, because when these matters were being discussed when the last Conservative Government were in office Conservative Ministers adopted a most obdurate attitude. I shall leave this subject because I do not want to transgress in the way that Opposition Members have done.
One cannot help being impressed with the very effective way in which the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts have been administered. In fairness, I should say that this is true not merely under the present Government but also under Governments of long ago. There is good sense and practised leniency as well as a sense of what is right, which commands


admiration on practically all occasions. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for Defence for the Army on the very forthright and sensible way in which he interpreted Army discipline, and the wishes of the general public, in the recent case of rape which came before the Court of Criminal Appeal recently. This was a very horrible case of rape—

Dr. Gilbert: If I may put the record correct, I think that my hon. Friend is misadvised. If my hon. Friend was referring to the Holdsworth case, it was a case not of rape but of grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Cronin: I may be making a technical error, but it was grievous bodily harm with an obvious sexual intention.

Mr. David Walder: I fail to understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. I thought that the case was before a civilian court.

Mr. Cronin: I think that it will become clear to the hon. Gentleman if I pursue my point. It seemed to me and, I believe, to most people that the Court of Criminal Appeal forgot its plain duty to protect the female population of the country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not been paying the hon. Gentleman the attention that his observations deserve, but he is well out of order now.

Mr. Cronin: I think that my next sentence will make clear that I am completely in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One cannot help being impressed at the way in which my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State immediately used the procedures under the Army Act in a really effective way which is consistent with justice and with public opinion, even though the Court of Criminal Appeal clearly failed in its duty. I have made my point and I shall not transgress by going further into that subject.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: I suggest, with great respect, that if the hon. Gentleman had been sitting in the Appeal Division of the Court of Criminal Appeal he would probably have come to the same decision—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Whatever may happen in the Court of Criminal

Appeal does not happen under the order that we are now discussing.

Mr. Cronin: I totally disagree with the intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I cannot refer to his intervention because if I do so I shall be out of order. There have been so many interruptions in my speech that this is the first time I have considered that speaking in the House is a gymnastic exercise.
One cannot help being impressed with the discipline in the three Services. I have visited the Army, Navy and Air Force on numerous occasions and, like many hon. Members on both sides, I was present at the splendid exibition at Spit-head last week when we saw sailors and marines manning ships' sides for hours at a time under wet, cold conditions that the Armed Forces of some other countries would not have found tolerable. It was an indication of the excellent discipline in the Royal Navy. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester would be particularly appreciative of that.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Worse things than that happen at sea.

Mr. Cronin: I have never known a cliche used with such effect to lighten a debate.
There is no doubt that discipline in the Armed Forces is of a very high order, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland, where members of the Forces are put to a very severe test. While carrying out his orders a man may be responsible for a death, serious injury or civil tumult. We must be impressed by the standard of discipline of the Army in Northern Ireland. The House can safely renew the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts. They are administered in an impeccable way, and there is no discontent about the Acts in the Armed Services. I have never heard any soldier, sailor or airman express discontent—

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Except about pay.

Mr. Cronin: Pay is outside the scope of the order. Apart from the discontent that all of us have about our pay and incomes, there has never been any suggestion of any discontent in the Armed Services in regard to the Army, Navy and Air Force Discipline Acts. The Acts


have been administered most sensibly and patiently, with a thorough understanding of modern social conditions by officers of the Forces concerned, and I am sure that they will continue to be administered with the same impartiality, justice and good sense, certainly as long as the present Government, remain in office.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Clark: Ritual expressions of gratitude and appreciation whenever the Armed Forces are mentioned are, of course, inseparable from any reference to them in the House. The members of those same Services, however, might be forgiven for thinking—I hope I repeat the adage correctly—that fine words butter no parsnips. It has become a habitual practice to refer to them in glowing terms, but the results of those references are very seldom seen in concrete results. It is, of course, comforting for the civilian administrators to believe that discipline is sound, just as it is disturbing for them to believe that it might be deteriorating. Frequently in the distant past expressions of appreciation for good discipline have had an element of wishful thinking about them.
Today, however, questions of discipline have enlarged considerably even from the confines to which they were restricted in the Acts, all of them now over 20 years old. The Act covering the Army was passed in 1955, as was that covering the Royal Air Force. The Act concerned with the Navy was passed in 1957. New elements have intruded on the whole question of discipline in two separate areas. Discipline formerly embraced largely the question of total obedience to the orders of a superior officer, regardless of and perhaps without thinking of the consequences.
However, there are two new elements, one in a combat context and the other in a civilian context. The first arises primarily from the difficulties which our Forces experience in Northern Ireland. It is well known and accepted in the House that soldiers are constrained from using the appropriate measure of force, even at an individual level, which they believe is necessary to ensure the safety and security of their comrades, the civilians with whose care they are charged, and even their own lives. They must consult a yellow card before they can

fire a live round. I am not familiar with the precise details of how this particular discipline is imposed, but it was not embodied in the 1955 Act. It could not have been envisaged at that time. The concomitant of that is that they are not allowed to fire an automatic round.
They are also constrained in their use of rubber bullets and in the use of their vehicles. They are even constrained in the use of their individual physical force in a man-to-man encounter. In all these situations their instinctive reactions, the reactions to which they have been trained for their careers, are restricted unnaturally by the new constraints of discipline, which are alien to the proper strain of military training and which are imposed upon the soldiers out of primarily political considerations.
The second area in which there are new and unwelcome disciplines is in the civilian context. I have personal knowledge of this from constituents of mine who have been in the Armed Forces. There is a tendency now for individual soldiers, whether in or out of uniform, and particularly for members of the junior infantry battalions, to be subjected to abuse and sometimes physical assault by gangs of undisciplined civilian youths. They often identify the soldiers, the cadets, and the junior infantry members when they are out of uniform by the evident differences in their appearance. They have shorter hair and tidier clothing and they hold themselves differently. They have better manners. They tend in certain parts of the country to be subjected to assault by youths who resent them and resent what they clearly see as something superior which makes them feel uncomfortable, which they wish to contest and, possibly, to eliminate.
In many cases the soldiers, being better disciplined and stronger, consider the question of retaliation. The night after an attack, a group of soldiers might seek to even the score, but then the constraints of discipline come in. It is easy to identify the soldiers and to pull them in and punish them—and they are punished very severely. However, those who assault the soldiers find it easy to disappear, and since they are mostly youths the Children and Young Persons Act makes it almost impossible to visit them with proper penalties.
Under the Army Act any form of violence against a civilian is scrutinised carefully, and any question of combination by soldiers to protect themselves can lead to serious consequences, even of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) referred.
Today, therefore, we have these two new constraints on members of the Forces. In the first the dictates of fundamental training have to be ignored. In the second the old civilian respect and admiration for the soldiers, which have been their lot for many decades and even centuries, are now inverted and they are subjected to physical assault and abuse while being restrained from properly protecting themselves.
Is it not all the more admirable, therefore, that in both these contexts discipline is almost entirely unaffected? The Services have adapted to these new contexts and they comport themselves correctly. They endure these constraints and they have submitted to these extended disciplines, which are contained nowhere in the Acts, with the proper bearing and comportment of which we are rightly proud.
This is so because they are still conscious that they are an elite and that they are superior to those who are attacking them in one way or another. They are superior physically, and in terms of intelligence, training, and motivation. It is this which allows them to remain disciplined under all kinds of provocations. It is this element which is itself an ingredient of discipline and which helps to maintain the conduct of our Forces in these difficult circumstances. It is this element for which the House should be genuinely grateful and for which we should express our thanks.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I start from my experience of serving on the Committee which examined the new proposals for courts martial and gave more power to commanding officers of units. When those proposals came before the House, some Labour Members suggested that giving commanding officers more power was a retrograde step which would enforce tougher discipline, and there were peripheral suggestions that the Armed Forces might be served by some sort of trade union.
The young man or woman who enters the Forces accepts from the beginning that it is a disciplined Service, subject to rules and regulations not applicable to the civilian population. Practically everyone I know in the Services would take the view that a court martial is preferable to a civilian court, which so often acts in ignorance of the conditions of service. Hon. Members who do not take my view need only refer to The Times. We have an example in all our minds at the moment.
The average Service man would prefer a court martial, which knows about him and his conditions of service and is far more likely to deal fairly with him. I say this to answer the peripheral suggestion that a court martial automatically imposes stiffer penalties than a civilian court. In my experience, quite the reverse is true.
Those who suggest a union are in fact suggesting that the Armed Forces should have a better opportunity of expressing their grievances to the public, the feeling being that they are constrained by the military code in a way which does not happen to civilians, who can say almost anything they please. If, in conformity with the views of some Labour Members below the Gangway, there were a union for the Forces, might not that union, like other unions, complain about pay and conditions of service and about the cuts imposed in the work force over the last few years?

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I apologise for having left the Chamber to make a quick telephone call. I shall do my best not to skate on thin ice. I pay my tribute to the discipline in the Armed Services, a subject on which we are all agreed.
I spent many hours on the Committee which considered the Armed Forces Act 1975, which increased the sentencing powers of commanding officers and set up a civilian court in Germany for certain offences. How are those matters progressing, and what effect have the changes had? After all, the Committee examined those matters for some time before they were finally agreed.

6.55 p.m.

Dr. Gilbert: The House has been in some difficulty tonight. In fact, I can


think of no other debate which has gone on for so long on which I have so few notes for my reply. The rules governing debates on these orders are very tight. However, I would say to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) that I did not say that these debates should go through "on the nod". That phrase came from the Chair. I was prepared with a whole raft of questions which might have been raised.
The sense of the House has been unanimous, that the code of discipline imposed on members of the Armed Forces is fair and necessary. As the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) said, it is understood by officers and men and women and is fairly and justly administered. In my visits around the Services in the short time that I have been in this position, like my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) I have never heard a word of complaint about the code or the way in which it is administered.
It is also the sense of the House that great strains are being imposed on the discipline of the Forces at the moment, not least as a result of difficulties in Northern Ireland, but that as a country we are lucky in the devotion to duty of members of the Forces of all ranks and performing all types of function.
It is too early to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). Some of the provisions to which he referred—perhaps all of them, but I am not sure of that—came into effect only this week. If I can give more information 1 shall write to the hon. Gentleman, and if he puts a Question on the Order Paper I shall be happy to make it a matter of public record.
The hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) commented on the court-martial procedure, but I did not detect in what he said any criticisms or suggestions for improvement. If he has any such suggestions, we always stand ready to investigate them.
I thank hon. Members for their expression of appreciation to members of the Armed Forces and of the standards of discipline which they are maintaining.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

BLIND PERSONS (BENEFITS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Robin Hodgson: From what we have just been discussing to the subject that I wish to raise—that is, from military discipline to benefits for the blind—may seem a big step, but the two topics coincide in one particularly tragic area. That is those people who have given their sight in the service of the Crown while in the Armed Forces. I pay a particular tribute to that gallant and courageous band who gave their sight in this way—whether most recently in Northern Ireland, in the Second World War, or as long ago as the Frst World War.
I am glad of this opportunity to raise the subject of inequalities in benefits payable to the blind. I want to draw attention to important defects in the present situation. I have already raised the matter with the Minister, both by letter and in Questions. I thank him for his full and courteous replies to my queries, but I hope that he will not mind my adding that those replies have not exactly answered my point. I hope that we may explore it more fully now.
I am not concerned with commenting on the adequacy of benefits generally. That is not the point that I wish to make. Nor am I commenting on the relative benefits payable to different classes of handicapped people, whether blind, deaf, physically handicapped, or whatever. That, again, falls outside the point that I wish to make. The specific area to which I wish to address my remarks is the gross discrepancies in the benefits payable to people who are blind and therefore suffer exactly the same handicap.
At 31st December 1976 there were approximately 118,000 registered blind people in the United Kingdom—101,000 in England, 7,000 in Wales and 10,000 in Scotland. About 60,000, or just over


50 per cent., were aged 75 or over and about 86,000, or nearly three-quarters, were aged 65 or over. That makes it clear that increasing blindness is primarily attributable to old age.
But that does not tell the whole story. An analysis of the causes of blindness reveals a much wider disparity. There are statistics available for the period from 1963 to 1968. I apologise to the House for the fact that they are out of date, but there do not seem to be any available for later periods. Those statistics reveal that during that five-year period some 13,000 people became blind, and that 43 per cent., 5,700 suffered from myopic degeneration, that is, loss of eyesight primarily due to old age.
There were two other significant causes. Twenty five per cent.—just over 3,000—were born blind as a result of some form of pre-natal influence, and about 25 per cent.—nearly 4,000—went blind as a result of some systemic disease, diabetes or neuralgic disorders of one kind or another. During the same period 49 people were blinded as a result of industrial accidents and 17 people were blinded as a result of service in the Armed Forces. I draw the attention of the House to those two categories, because I wish to return to them in a minute.
Against this background I was surprised to learn from a constituent of mine, Mr. Charles Deakes, who lives at Willenhall in my constituency, that the amount of benefits received by a blind person is dependent not only on his personal financial circumstances, but on the manner in which he becomes blind. I could not believe this when I first heard it. I considered, in my innocence, that blind people had broadly the same needs, and that payments made to them were linked to those needs and not to the pure accident of how they were blinded. My view was confirmed when I saw that the Inland Revenue made an allowance of £180 against income tax for all blind people irrespective of how they were blinded.
But my questioning of the Minister, both in the House and by letter, has revealed that my constituent was completely right. It has revealed the following extraordinary state of affairs. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are blinded at work or in the Armed Forces, you will receive

a pension of £25 a week. You will receive it as of right, automatically. In November that sum will be raised to £28·60. Moreover, it will not be subject to any claw-back if you are employed. That is to say, if you can go out and supplement your earnings by getting a job, you will not lose any of that £25. It is payable as a lump sum on a weekly basis irrespective of the level of earnings.
On the other hand, if you are blinded at home, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or there is a medical cause of your blindness you receive nothing—I repeat, nothing—except your right to supplementary benefit, which every citizen has a right to, in any case. As a blind person you will receive one small increase amounting to £1·25 per week as an addition to the supplementary benefit which will be paid to you because you are blind. It is interesting, though not strictly in the context of the remarks that I wish to make, that that allowance, which is now £1·25, was 75p as long ago as 1948. It is difficult to believe that 75p in 1948 did not buy a great deal more than £1·25 does today.
I return to my main point. If a person draws supplementary benefit and becomes a long-term claimant under the supplementary benefits scheme, he will receive £16·95 per week, which is going up to £1915 in November. But he will receive that £16·95 only if he is not working. If one has other sources of income, whether capital or income, one will suffer withdrawal. One will start to lose that benefit and not even receive the £1695, which is a maximum and subject to claw-back. That means that through chance John Citizen can be up to £8 per week worse off because he happens to have been blinded in an accident at home instead of in an accident at work. Can this be right? Can it be fair? I think not.
Perhaps I may anticipate some of the remarks that the Minister may wish to make in reply. I am sure that he will say that the second category, the person who was blinded at home and who has to apply for supplementary benefit, will receive a rent rebate. He is probably right. But the levels of rebate, certainly in my constituency, are never more than £5 a week, and are often as little as £2 or £3. Therefore, the £8 differential, though it is minimised, still exists. There is still a difference resulting from the means by which one is blinded.
Secondly, I think that the Minister will say that there are additional benefits payable to the blind. He is right. But, of course, they are payable to all the blind, and therefore the differential between the two classes of blind people still exists. Indeed, I might also point out to the Minister that the benefits that he may refer to are not always as broad in their application as he might like to think. The much-vaunted postal concession is available only for dispatches of Braille material and certain incoming material from approved and registered sources. Concessionary travel fares, which are often mentioned in connection with blind people and which are given by British Rail or by some of the bus companies, similarly usually apply only to travel to and from work and for medical treatment or to and from further training. As such, their application is not as wide as is sometimes thought from a mere superficial study of the benefits available.
Thirdly, the Minister is likely to say that the £25 per week automatic pension is a contributory benefit whereas the supplementary benefit is non-contributory—that is, the £25 automatic pension arises because people have made contributions to the graduated pension scheme and as such are merely drawing some of the contributions that they have made. In part that is right, but many people who will be blinded at home will not qualify for the pension even though they may have worked for a period and made contributions to the graduated pension scheme. Certain people struck blind at 40 by natural causes will find that although they have paid 20 or 25 years' contributions to the graduated pension scheme they cannot draw the same pension as that of the person blinded at work.
On the other hand there are other examples which I am sure the Minister will not mention, for if he did they would only serve further to underline the idiosyncrasies of the present distinction. What he will not say is that people who are blinded at work nearly always find it easier to get a job, because an employer who has an accident on his premises, as a result of which an employee is blinded, not surprisingly, and quite rightly, feels a moral duty to that person and will do his level best to ensure that some alternative form of employment is found, albeit not in the same job. It may have to be

a telephonist's job or some other job in which sight is not so important. For those who are tragically blinded in the service of the Crown, the Earl Haig Fund and some of the funds run by that organisation are able to do a great deal of work.
Equally, I do not think that the Minister will want to admit that supplementary benefit is not available to many blind people. There are blind workers who are on low rates of pay and who do not qualify and there are non-working blind housewives whose husbands are at work.
I do not think that the Minister will say that the £8 gap could be just a minimum, because there are many other allowances that those in receipt of invalidity pensions are allowed to draw on top of their pension and that are not available to those who are on supplementary benefit. There is the constant attendance allowance of £10 a week. There is the unemployability allowance, which is available to the very severely handicapped, of £15·30 a week. There is the invalidity allowance on a sliding scale, with a maximum of £3·20. Added together, they total £53·50 a week, including the £25 a week pension. If we compare that with £16·95 plus a rent allowance, we see that the discrepancy has increased rather than decreased.
I have not mentioned the £10 special hardship allowance, which brings it up to £63·50, or the extra £5 a week which is available to blinded members of the Armed Forces. That is made up of a comforts allowance of £4 a week, and £1 extra on the unemployed benefit allowance. These are very substantial discrepancies, indeed, which could range as high as £40, £45 and £50 a week, covering two classes of people who, quite by chance, are blinded 20 minutes apart, one at home and one at work. I submit that this differential is quite inequitable and also quite indefensible.
I do not wish to be accused of lèse majesté, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if this evening you were to tumble from your Chair and to catch your forehead on the chair in front of you, as a result of which your optic nerves were damaged and you were blinded, you would qualify for a £25 week pension automatically as a result of an industrial injury incurred in the course of your work. If, however, you were to go home and tumble down the


stairs and receive similar injuries with a similar result, you would qualify for nothing other than your right to apply for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his indication of how one can get money, but I do not think I am prepared to accept either method.

Mr. Hodgson: I am not suggesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that either method should be followed. I was merely wishing to draw attention to the anomalies and to the quite indefensible way in which a person can be penalised as a result.
I believe that this cannot be right. I think that the enormous discrepancies, between £50 a week as a maximum and £5, £6, or £7 as a minimum, existing between two categories of blind people, are morally indefensible. I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to draw the Government's attention to this point this evening.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I think we should appreciate the very fine speech made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) about that section of the community who suffer from the unfortunate tragedy of being either partially sighted or blind. There are persons who are partially sighted but who can still be registered as blind persons and who are as a consequence entitled to some of the proposed concessions which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
The nature of this subject is such that I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look into the many aspects of how blind people are treated. I always believed that any person who was totally incapacitated from work, simply because of the fact that he was blind, would be entitled to the full benefits as long as the necessary obligation had been fulfilled under the National Insurance Act. But there is an opinion abroad that a person who, while fully qualified for benefits, suddenly becomes blind but it not being treated by the insurance officer as totally incapacitated.
For the life of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot understand this attitude. Here we have an individual who, due to some

accident or some act of God, if one may call it that, finds himself without eyesight and, therefore, has to leave his work immediately. I should have thought that that person was totally incapacitated from working due to the fact that he had lost his eyesight, and that as such, being totally incapacitated, he should qualify for the ordinary sickness rate, followed by the invalidity rate of benefit after six months, as long as he had fulfilled the obligation of paying the statutory insurance contributions. But I am told that this is not so, and I should therefore be most grateful if the Minister would look into it.
If insurance officers are interpreting the National Insurance Act as meanly and as harshly as that, it is time that something was done about it, because the individuals I am thinking about will never work again, due to no fault of their own. As the hon. Gentleman said, it can be due to an accident at work, to failing health or to many other causes.
For instance, myopics usually inherit that particular trouble from birth. Medical science has proved that usually it is hereditary. There is no need for me to tell hon. Members that anyone reaching the mid-50s finds his eyesight beginning to trouble him. Many persons who have never had any bother with their eyesight find that they require to get reading spectacles at that age because age is affecting their sight. If age affects a person who previously enjoyed perfect eyesight until his mid-50s, you will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how badly it affects those who have had this trouble from birth. I was a myopic at birth, and when I reached the mid-50s worsening eyesight due to age affected me much more severely that it affects persons who previously had very good eyesight.
A person who left school at 15 and who has been working and paying insurance contributions may find, on reaching 55, that he has become totally incapacitated because age has caught up with his hereditary myopia. Such a person is no longer able to work. I believe it is extremely unfair that any insurance officer should interpret the regulations to mean that in these circumstances such a person is unable to give a reasonable answer for not being able to work. That interpretation deprives any such person of his total incapacity benefit, and in my view that is


extremely unfair. I do not think much of any statutory bodies which back such opinions from any insurance officer. 1 shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will be good enough to look into it.
There are also persons who, although blind, can get about with the aid of a stick, although they cannot see an inch in front of them. Such persons, because they are regarded as mobile, are not entitled, it has been ruled, to the immobility allowance. This is extremely unfair.
One could have a housewife who is blind but who has a good physique, so that she is able to go out of the front door or the back door but cannot get beyond it unless she is accompanied and has the security of some person before she ventures to cross streets. There is nothing more worrying or upsetting than the lack of security which is felt by a blind person who, when walking the streets, has to pass by shops which have dustbins at the door, and has to cross streets and overcome various other hazards on the journey to a particular destination.
That is why these people require someone with them. Yet, because they are able to walk, it has been ruled that they do not qualify for mobility allowance. That is an unfortunate occurrence, especially from a Government and a party which have built themselves on compassion. I say that sincerely. At the same time, however, I appreciate the difficulties of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has responsibility for the disabled. I know that he has finite resources and I know that there are infinite claims on those resources. I am the first person to concede that. However, I hope that some further compassion can be given in such cases. These are genuine cases.
All that one has to do to recognise what it is like to be a myopic is to walk along the street for 10 yards and to close one's eyes. Imagine what it would be like to be unable to watch a good football match on television or that wonderful tennis competition which took place last week. Yet such people can see absolutely nothing of that sort.
Of course these people have sought to overcome their difficulties, but I think that they should be given some extra consideration. I have never understood why the income tax authorities allow only £180

for a person who is blind. A person who is blind needs someone to read and write and to escort him everywhere. I would have thought that £180 a year—about £3 a week—is an infinitesimal sum to allocate to any blind person who cannot possibly survive—that is the important point—without assistance both inside and outside the home. I went along to see an old soul who suffered from blindness and found him lying on the kitchenette floor. He was trying to make a cup of tea and could not see the Same of the fire.
A lot of these unfortunate citizens in our society are trying to overcome their difficulties and to live as normal a life as possible. I feel that the powers-that-be do not really appreciate just what these unfortunate persons have to try to overcome. I believe that we might have more consideration, not only with regard to the benefits referred to by the hon. Member for Walsall, North but with regard to other benefits.
I would give one illustration to show the lack of compassion which exists at present. I know of a blind person who is self-employed. He is an excellent chap who works as a chiropodist. Someone drives him to work. When he is driven to Glasgow, the driver cannot park where the boss's car is parked or where staff cars are parked. He has to park about half a mile away, and then that blind person has to walk all the distance in order to get to the house where he will do this valuable work. What we have is a case of real thoughtlessness on the part of the powers-that-be.
Surely some arrangement could be made whereby that person could be dropped off right at the place of work and picked up again after completing his work. This person wants to work for his own livelihood. His lifelong aim is never to be unemployed. He wants to reach the age of 65 without having drawn a halfpenny of dole money. That is the ideal of a blind man.
If we had some aspirations from our Ministers, and some other powers-that-be, I am sure that we would have a much greater recognition of the plight of the blind person. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has done a great deal of work for all sections of the disabled and handicapped in our society. I do not know of any Minister who has exceeded the contribution of my hon.


Friend, both as a Back Bencher and as a Minister. I am not suggesting that he is inconsiderate or that he does not understand the problem of the blind person. What I am suggesting is that there is a greater need for my hon. Friend to prevail upon the powers-that-be to give greater recognition to the nature of this handicap and for them to help these people much better than is being done at present.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Tony Newton: Since we have a little time tonight, I should like to take a moment of the time of the House to support my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), who has performed an important service by raising this subject.
In the few years that I have been a Member of this House I have taken a considerable interest in issues both of taxation and of social services affecting disabled people, including the blind. The first thing that strikes one is the apparent absurdity of the situation which affects blind people. But, of course, as my hon. Friend will acknowledge, it covers far larger categories than the blind and includes the disabled and widows.
A vastly different range of benefits is applied to such people. It would be wrong, and out of order, for me to attempt to discuss the broader problems. It should be made clear, however, that in essence they are exactly the same as the specific group on which my hon. Friend has concentrated, namely, the blind. I have no doubt that the Minister can find an explanation for the differences that exist. I am sure that he will talk about the Industrial Injuries Scheme and all the various other special schemes that have grown up and been introduced.
Rather than hear from the Minister why this situation exists, I should like to know whether he thinks that it ought to exist. Even if we agree, as I hope we shall, that it ought not to exist, I accept that it will take time to get away from it. If one were to raise all the benefits, not only for the blind but for all the other categories I have mentioned, to the most generous level currently paid, it would be a costly business and it would have to be done over a period of years.
The key point is whether the Minister acknowledges what to me is the most important single fact, which is that we have an absurd situation in which we are currently dealing with people according to circumstances in which a particular form of hardship arose rather than dealing with the hardship and tackling it according to the nature of the hardship and the needs of the person.
In the long run, whatever the explanation tonight, that cannot make sense. 1 for one shall be much encouraged if we have some recognition from the Minister that he accepts that position.

7.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I would say at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as one who holds you in the highest possible regard, and with very much affection, I pray that you will be saved from the rather violent fate that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson) mentioned towards the end of the speech.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has spoken with obviously genuine feeling and concern for raising this important topic for debate tonight. It is only through expressions of concern in this House and elsewhere that we can hope to improve conditions for disabled people and speed their full integration into society.
May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) for having intervened in the debate? As he said, he was myopic from birth and he is: quite severely handicapped now. I much admire all the work that he does in the service of blind people. He was kind enough to recall a statement that I made to the effect that we have finite resources to try to keep pace with infinite claims.
As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) indicated, there are many things yet to be done for disabled people generally. I know of his personal interest in the problems of the disabled—it is not just an interest, he has also worked on problems of taxation that affect disabled people.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to what he regards as inequality of treatment for blind persons in relation


to social security benefits. Before replying to the specific points that he raised, I emphasise that social security provision is, of course, only one aspect of the help that is available for blind persons as it is for people suffering from other kinds of impairment.
As the House will recognise, it is quite wrong to assume that all disabled people are incapable of self-support and must rely on social security benefits for their basic incomes. For young blind people in particular training and rehabilitation are most important aims. It may help to put my later remarks into context if I remind the House of the number of people afflicted by blindness and also say something about the different considerations that affect benefits and services and their relationship to individual circumstances, such as the age of the blind person concerned and the age at which blindness occurred. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the incidence of blindness among the elderly.
In Britain we have a statutory definition of blindness. It is to be found in the National Assistance Act 1948, which says that a blind person is a person
so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.
At 31st March 1976, the latest date for which figures are available, more than 100,000 people were registered as blind by local authorities in England. Of these, about 74,000 were over 65 and about 55,000 were over 75. In other words, nearly three-quarters of the registered blind people are past normal retirement age. Moreover, the hon. Member and the House will readily appreciate that the services and the benefits needed by the great majority of elderly blind people may be entirely different from those needed by children who are born blind and people who become blind during their working lives.
Another point that is sometimes overlooked in general discusion of the problems is that individual blind people, like other people, have individual qualities and needs. They include people who have so succeeded in overcoming their handicap that they lead fully independent lives, financially as well as socially. Yet they also include people who have the misfortune to suffer additional physical or mental handicaps as well as blindness and who are, therefore, completely dependent

upon others for their welfare. Again, some blind people are members of a strong family group that offers great comfort and support, while others are helped by neighbours or friends.
Sadly, however, there are those also who have to rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary organisations. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the voluntary organisations in this field, I feel that I do so on behalf of both sides of the House and on behalf of people generally throughout the country. But, as I have said, there are those blind people who must rely exclusively on help from statutory or voluntary bodies and this is the difficulty about standardised services and benefits for all blind people. The first consideration is to assess each blind person's needs for training, rehabilitation and other services, taking into account all relevant factors, including those of environment.
For those who are born blind we have a range of support services to the family provided by the health and local authorities and by voluntary organisations. Here I must mention the Royal National Institute for the Blind, whose contribution to the welfare of blind people in relation to almost every aspect of their needs is unrivalled throughout the world.
For our part, the Government are constantly seeking methods to improve services. For example, we are seeking reactions to the possible introduction of a new form which will, we hope, lead to improved arrangements for notification of visual handicap in children, so that more information can be made available about their visual defects without premature attempts to classify them as being "blind" or "partially sighted". This should help with the planning of suitable services at the most appropriate time for these children, including consideration of a young person's employment potential and training needs.
For people who become blind during their working lives the first essential is to try to help them to accept their grievous loss, to come to terms with blindness and thus face life with new and realistic expectations. The next essential is to help them with social rehabilitation. By this I mean learning such things as how to move about unaided in the house, how to find things, how to cook and do


housework, how to move about safely out of doors by public transport and in the streets, and how to shop.
Communication skills such as Braille are also extremely valuable. A range of special aids is available—from the long cane, which is the most generally useful aid to mobility, to hand-held sonic or laser obstacle detectors and electronic devices that enable blind people to read ink prints. One of these latter devices, the Optacon, is being supplied in increasing numbers from funds provided by the Employment Service Agency to enable blind people to work as computer programmers. As part of its specialist resettlement service for all disabled people the Employment Service Agency provides assistance for blind people interested in industrial employment through its 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers.

Mr. Hodgson: I am grateful to the Minister for going through the long list of aids and benefits, but the question is whether it is right that differential benefits should apply to different classes of blind people. The Minister can answer that "Yes" or "No".

Mr. Morris: I shall be coming to the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman sought to anticipate my reply by saying what it would and would not include. I am afraid that my reply will disappoint him, because he did not accurately anticipate my speech. If he likes to examine my notes afterwards, he will see that I am not reading from some text that was typed out without any kind of contribution from my own pen. I am sorry that I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because he clearly has a genuine concern for blind people, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree.
I was referring to the Employment Service Agency and the assistance that it provides for blind people interested in industrial employment. This is undertaken through the agency's 35 blind persons resettlement officers and 32 blind persons training officers. In addition, the agency is making a grant to the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which

has responsibility for the resettlement of blind people in professional and commercial employment and of school leavers. The RNIB runs a residential employment rehabilitation centre at Torquay, and the Society for Welfare and Training of the Blind has a centre at Ceres in Fife. Both centres are given financial support by the Employment Service Agency. They both accept people, whatever the cause of their blindness, who can be expected to benefit from the service available.
The people who attend these centres receive rehabilitation allowances on the same scale as those attending the Employment Service Agency's own rehabilitation centres. The courses are intended primarily for newly blind people, but they are also open to people who have been blind for some time and who are considered to be in need of rehabilitation to enable them to take up employment again. In addition to the rehabilitative and assessment aspects, the courses include facilities to assist social adjustment, restoration of independence, and, at Torquay, mobility training. After receiving this help, the blind persons resettlement officer will, of course, come into the picture again to help place the person in a suitable job.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to employment opportunities for blind people. I should like to take the opportunity to emphasise the abilities of blind and other disabled people. It is easy to spot the disabilities of disabled people. One of my tasks is to point to the abilities even of people who are very severely disabled. I think that we can take pride in the achievements at work and in other activities of many severely disabled people in Britain.
Earlier today I was with Richard O'Brien, the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. He carries out great work in seeking to emphasise the claims of disabled people in the matter of employment opportunities. My ministerial colleagues at the Department of Employment, particularly the Undersecretary of State for Employment, have been extremely active recently in seeking further to emphasise the need to increase the employment opportunities for disabled people. The House will know of the "Positive Policies" document recently launched by my hon. Friend. I have


the greatest possible pleasure in working with him to try to advance the claim made by the hon. Member for Walsall North on behalf of blind people in seeking to improve their employment opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to the craving of blind people and other disabled people for employment. He rightly emphasised that in most cases even the most severely disabled people would rather be taxpayers than supplementary pensioners. That point is well taken. I know that that view is shared by Opposition Members.
For my part, I shall go on emphasising the abilities of disabled people. There is no room for condescension of disabled people by able-bodied people. We can take some pride in the achievements of disabled people, both in terms of employment and in other respects. There are a number of services and concessions available for blind people further details of which are contained in a leaflet entitled "Help for Handicapped People". The hon. Gentleman might like to examine pages 22 and 23 of that important publication. The hon. Gentleman did not anticipate that I would draw attention to those two pages in that important official publication.
I would also ask the hon. Gentleman to consider more directly the financial assistance available to blind people. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred mainly to benefits for which my Department is responsible, but we must not overlook the special tax treatment accorded to blind people. The hon. Member for Braintree will be familiar with that concession. As he knows, there is a blind person's tax allowance, which provides exemption from tax at the recipient's marginal rate of tax, on £180 a year, or twice this sum if both spouses are blind, less any tax-free disability payments received. There are many who do not believe that relief from income tax is the best or necessarily the most appropriate way to help disabled members of our society, but this quite exceptional measure for all blind people has now been with us for 15 years, and I am sure that it plays a significant and useful part in meeting the extra expenses resulting from blindness.
I turn to the subject of social security benefits. The hon. Member for Walsall, North illustrated his argument in part by referring to a constituent. If he feels that in that case, or in any other case, the law is being inappropriately or unfairly applied, I or the manager of the appropriate local office, with which I know the hon. Gentleman has been in contact, will be pleased to reconsider the case in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie referred to cases in his constituency. Again, I shall be pleased to examine any individual case or any case that affects a group of individuals which he may like me to study in detail after this debate.

Mr. David Hunt: The Minister referred to certain allowances aimed at overcoming the additional costs of blindness. Perhaps one of the greatest complaints made by those who are blind is that these allowances—tax allowances and supplementary benefit level—have not kept pace with inflation. In 1948, when the allowance was first introduced, it amounted to 15s. and the average weekly earnings were £5. 17. 4d. Average weekly earnings have now increased to £68 a week, which is 12 times as much, yet the special benefit of 15 shillings has increased to only £1·25 a week.
That is the sort of problem that hits blind people as a result of inflation and they are not given enough to help to overcome the problems of blindness. They do not need any help except financial assistance—that was thought of originally in 1948—to help them to overcome those particular problems. Is the Minister considering the constructive proposal of the Royal National Institute for the Blind for a blindness allowance which would be fixed at a proper rate and index-linked to ensure that it would keep up with inflation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt) taking part in the debate. I know that he is a comparative newcomer to the House, but an intervention is not supposed to be a substitute for a speech. If the hon. Member wishes to take part he may do so after the Minister has spoken.

Mr. Morris: I was happy to give way to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). The hon. Gentleman has been


in close touch with me on many matters affecting the disabled and I know that he takes a special interest in these matters. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the effect that inflation has had upon long-standing benefits that have not been uprated. This is an extremely difficult matter of policy. I shall come later to some of the particular points that the hon. Member raised, but his main point was much the same as that made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North.
When the hon. Member for Walsall, North raised the subject tonight, and on a previous occasion, he drew attention particularly to the industrial injuries scheme and to the supplementary benefits scheme. In their different ways both schemes make special provision for blind people. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will understand, however, in considering improvements in social security provision for any one group of the disabled the Government have also to consider their overall priorities in improving provisions for the disabled. Some important progress has been made since we came to office in improving existing social security benefits to help the disabled and in adding new ones where there were gaps.
I acknowledge that there is still much to be done and the Government welcome the wide-ranging debate on priorities, as evidenced by the seminar on social security that took place in London today. I had the pleasure of addressing that seminar on the problems and claims of disabled people. I strongly made the point that there is still much more to do. I am sure that most hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge and Airdrie and Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—who are here tonight—would agree that, while there has been substantial progress recently, there is still much to do in redressing the wrongs of centuries against the disabled.
In accord with the practice of most other countries, special and preferential provision is made in Britain for people who have been disabled at work or in war. The hon. Member for Walsall, North referred to the schemes that particularly help those who have been disabled in that way. The schemes through

which provision is made for those disabled through war or industrial injury have an honourable place in our wider system of social security which elsewhere provides benefits irrespective of the cause of disablement. Naturally, as the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, I endorse the warm tribute that was paid by the hon. Member for Walsall, North to the men and women who have become disabled through service to our country. Within these schemes there are no preferential provisions for blind people as such, although loss of vision as a result of, for instance, an industrial accident gives entitlement to a specified rate of disablement pension in the same way as does, to take a further example, the amputation of the hand.
I must now turn to the supplementary benefits system. As the hon. Member for Walsall, North will know, this system can provide help to people not in full-time employment if their resources are less than their requirements as laid down in legislation. The important thing to note in the present context is that when their requirements are being calculated, all blind people, whatever the cause of their blindness, have a preferential margin of £1·25 a week above other claimants in similar circumstances. The preferential scale rate is, however, largely historical in origin and now represents something of an anomaly within the supplementary benefits scheme.
Within that scheme the Supplementary Benefits Commission thinks it appropriate to provide for any extra expenses of disablement on an individual basis through its discretionary powers. Where in an individual case the extra needs of blindness exceed the margin, the excess may be provided for in that way. As its name suggests, the supplementary benefits scheme is not intended to provide a system of income maintenance for general classes of the population. It acts rather as a safety net for those who for various reasons find themselves without sufficient income from all other sources. Some do not require that assistance, but some require the preferential scale rate, and their incomes are rather different from the incomes of those who do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie raised the possibility of providing a mobility allowance for the blind. There is no doubt that the blind


have mobility problems. They are more severe for some of the blind than for others, but the mobility problems of the blind are real enough. However, the mobility allowance was designed for those disabled who are unable, or virtually unable, to walk. The allowance will help some of the blind, but it will help them because of a combination of handicaps and not because of blindness alone.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie appreciates, the mobility problems of the blind are not related to an inability to walk, but to their inability to cope with unfamiliar areas and difficulties associated with their use of public transport. It would not be possible to make the mobility allowance generally available to the blind without altering the nature of the allowance by widening the medical criteria, by abandoning the upper age limit—and, as my hon. Friend knows, about three-quarters of registered blind people are over pensionable age—and possibly by easing the condition as to duration of mobility problems.
Questions of principle apart, the cost of any such concession would be considerable. It is estimated that an extra 100,000 blind beneficiaries would double the cost of the mobility allowance, when all new beneficiaries were fully phased in. A cost of £182 million is estimated for abandoning the upper age limit for sighted beneficiaries and a further unspecified sum would be required to meet the claims of other diagnostic groups who might come within the scope of any wider criteria. In our present circumstances this is, unfortunately, impossible. The hon. Member for Braintree will appreciate how many claims there are on resources for helping the disadvantaged.

Mr. Newton: This is a key point. Do the Minister's figures take account of the fact that the mobility allowance is taxable and that for a very large number of people the cost to the Government would be 35 per cent. lower since these people would be paying standard rate income tax?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the Government's financial arrangements. The figures represent the financial cost to my Department. The hon. Gentleman may argue at another

time in another part of the House that there may be savings in giving certain kinds of extra help, but the figures that I have quoted represent the cost to my Department.
We have all heard it said that the sum is greater than the parts. However, those who want higher public expenditure in one area after another sometimes seem to argue that the sum is less than the parts. They want to reduce the totality of public expenditure while increasing all its elements. The hon. Member for Walsall, North will appreciate that we have a very difficult resource problem. There has been remarkable progress in helping disabled people considering the economic background against which we are working. If extra cash for the disabled becomes available, which group or groups of people are to be assisted and how must be decided on priorities. In view of the many competing claims, this will not be an easy decision.
I have already referred to the seminar on priorities in social security. This is one example of our continuing examination of financial help from which disabled people, among others, may benefit. Another example is the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson. Naturally, we shall be giving careful consideration to that report when it becomes available.
I am sure that from what I have said the House will acknowledge the wide range of help available to blind people irrespective of the cause of their blindness. The House will know that there is much more that I should like to do for blind people as for other disabled people. Occasions such as this debate are extremely valuable in encouraging us all to examine our scale of priorities for improvements and I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, North for giving us an opportunity to consider the problems faced by blind people. He has my assurance that I shall keep very much in mind all that he has said in my efforts to help blind and other disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie and the hon. Member for Braintree have the same assurance.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. David Hunt: I intervened during the Minister's speech because I felt that he was not responding


to the major point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson), namely, the inequalities in the allowances paid to blind people. I take a great deal of what the Minister said as signifying his deep concern about the problems of the blind, but one of the major points in this debate is the need for a blindness allowance. It is not necessarily a question of funding it now but is more a question of principle. Is the Minister prepared to accept here and now that one of the major priorities when funds are available must be to tackle fairly and squarely the problems faced by blind people?
I understood that the Minister was not prepared to commit himself on the general question of a blindness allowance. It has long been recognised—and the Minister himself recognised—that the problems of blind people are special problems with special financial significance. This has been stressed many times in this House. The introduction of the allowance in 1948 was a recognition of these serious problems. They cannot be tackled by small weekly sums. Often they entail heavy items of additional expenditure by a blind person.
Examples have already been given by hon. Members and I should like to give some more from the Royal National Institute for the Blind. For travel of all types, it is often necessary for a blind person to be accompaned by a guide and it is frequently necessary for him to pay two fares. In some areas the lack of public transport makes the increased use of taxis necessary. A blind person needs to use the telephone more often and needs a typewriter and Braille writing equipment and a scribe to write his leters and deal with his personal correspondence and bills.
There is additional wear and tear on a blind person's clothing. Spillage causing stains means additional laundering or dry cleaning bills. Bumping into objects and rubbing against walls lead to a shorter life for garments. There are also likely to be more accidents with scorching, cigarette burns and so on. Blind people also suffer additional wear and tear on their shoes.
In the household, there is additional heating expense for elderly blind people

because of lack of exercise and movement in the home. More expensive appliances have to be purchased for the home because of the safety factor and ease of use. Additional storage space and kitchen fitments are needed and there is also the expense of hiring professional labour for household tasks such as heavy gardening, window cleaning and electrical repairs.
The blind person has to try to meet all these expenses out of a not very special allowance. I have already explained how the supplementary allowance of 15s. which was introduced in 1948 was moderately significant at the time but that it has been eroded over the years, particularly by recent inflation, so that the present level of £1·25 should, if account were taken of average earnings, be £8·70 a week.
There is surely a case for having a special blindness allowance to meet the special problems of the blind. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North pointed out that a high proportion of the blind people at work are in low-paid jobs and are therefore unable to benefit from income tax allowances. It seems most unfair that these blind workers receive no allowance at all from any source in respect of additional living costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to the many unemployed blind housewives who, if their husbands are in low-paid employment, do not benefit from any tax relief or supplementary benefit.
Will the Minister turn his mind to considering in principle the acceptance that there is an established case for the provision of a blindness allowance payable as a right to all blind people over the age of 16 years, whether in work or unemployed, in addition to wages, salary or statutory benefits?

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt). I am well aware of the problems facing those who are disabled at war or at work and those who are disabled at neither war nor work. I referred to the social security seminar that I addressed in London early today. That shows that we are considering all the priorities.
The hon. Gentleman will readily appreciate that there are many competing


priorities. There are those of the elderly, one-parent families, widows and battered wives. I spoke at the seminar about the claims of the disabled, including those who are blind. We must not raise false hopes.
The 1948 scale rate was referred to by the hon. Gentleman just as it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Hodgson). It is an issue which has been considered by successive Governments since 1948. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that his party—

Mr. David Hunt: It is not a party matter.

Mr. Morris: If he is saying that his party, if given the opportunity, would remove the differences between the war pension scheme and the schemes that help the civilian disabled, that would cause considerable debate outside the House. I appreciate that he is not saying that his party would, given the opportunity, immediately iron out the differences between existing schemes.

Mr. Hodgson: This is a matter not of eradicating differentials but of accepting that payment should be related to need, not to the accidental circumstances in which a person is blinded. There cannot be any logic in doing that.

Mr. Morris: I pointed out that the Supplementary Benefits Commission has the discretion and uses the discretion to consider the needs of the disabled person, whether he or she is blind or suffering from some other disability.
The hon. Member for Wirral referred to the proposals made by the Royal Institute for the Blind. I am in fairly frequent contact with the institute and other organisations representing blind persons. We are constantly considering priorities. That which is put to me by the institute will be carefully considered. I have said that it provides a service for the blind that is unrivalled in the world. I am the person least likely not to give due weight to anything that is put to me by that organisation. At the same time, I cannot promise to do the impossible. I shall try to do everything that is possible in the service of the blind and other disabled persons.

SUZANNE CORNWELL

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise a subject that I intended to raise last Wednesday. I am especially grateful to the Minister for agreeing so willingly to deal with the case that I wish to put to the House after he has already had to deal with a particular probing Adjournment debate.
This is another case in which public funds are badly needed. I can understand the problems that the Department and the Government generally are facing when dealing with areas of special social need. I wish to refer to the distressing case of one of my constituents, Suzanne Cornwell, whose case, regrettably, is not an isolated one, although thankfully, I can say that it is pretty rare. It raises disturbing problems which to date we seem to be unable to cope with adequately.
Suzanne is now aged 19 years. She has been described as having a mental age of no more than 10 years although she can cope adequately with everyday situations such as dressing herself, going to work, going to college, where she was attending, and getting herself through the public transport system.
Suzanne's father first contacted me in September 1976 when his daughter was on remand in Holloway, having absconded from the Medina Training Centre at Newport, Isle of Wight. She had travelled to London under her own steam on stolen money. During the time that she was in Holloway it was alleged that she had been abused. I think that she had been tattooed by other inmates. She was quite rightly removed to the hospital wing.
Strenuous efforts were made by the social services department of the Isle of Wight County Council and by the area health authority to find a suitable placing for Suzanne, regrettably without success. On 6th October 1976 she was fined £10 and released back to her parents although still under the guardianship of the Isle of Wight County Council.
The judge's remarks were fully reported in the Press. I shall read some extracts because I think they illustrate the problem


that faced the judge and the social services agencies. The judge said that he was
horrified that a mountain of civil servants and administrators could not find her a hospital bed.
In a subsequent report in the Daily Express on Thursday 7th October, a very good description was given by Jack Hill of the problems that faced not only the judge but a family with a girl of this age for which there seemed to be no suitable home. The article stated:
It was with heavy hearts that Shirley and Howard Cornwell took their daughter home last night. 'I am disgusted at the situation we are placed in', said 41-year-old Mr. Cornwell. He and his wife have little doubt that before long their daughter Suzanne will again be in the hands of the police.
Suzanne, aged 18 but with a mental age of eight, is a compulsive thief. And the only hope for her is to be cared for and treated in a psychiatric home.
But when Suzanne appeared at Newport Crown Court, Isle of Wight … Judge Ian Starforth Hill set her free with a £10 fine for a petty theft. He was powerless to do anything else—because he was told that nowhere in Britain can a secure bed in a psychiatric home be found for Suzanne … 'If we want to face the truth, there are no such hospitals available. The fault, I suggest lies fairly and squarely with the Department of Health and Social Security'.
The judge was told that if Suzanne was freed she was likely to be back in the courts before very long, or would run away to London to become involved in prostitution.
He replied:
'It's all very well pointing this out and nobody, but nobody, comes forward with any solution. It is a mockery, an absolute mockery to sentence this girl to imprisonment'.
The Press report continues:
At the Cornwell's home in Avenue Road, Sandown, Suzanne played last night with the family's tortoiseshell kitten and said: 'It's lovely to be here … I didn't like it in prison at all.'
But her father said: 'She will get into trouble again. She needs a proper place to go to.
I don't blame the judge in any way for what he has done now, or for sending her to Holloway in the first place. Probably he is as disgusted as I am.
The type of halfway house needed for people like Suzanne, who are not violent or completely retarded, has been wanted for years but the problem has just been shoved into a corner out of sight …'
Mr. Cornwell described what life would be like for the family—another girl aged 11, and

two boys aged 15 and 13—with Suzanne back home.
He said: 'You cannot plan a life around yourself or the other children—it has to be planned around Suzanne.
When she comes in from a training centre she will have to stay in with us. When we go out she will have to come out with us.
When she goes to bed the door has to be locked so she cannot go out at night'.
Unfortunately, those prophecies proved only too true.
Suzanne then attended a modern hostel for people with mental disorders known as Glamis Court at East Cowes, Isle of Wight, where strenuous efforts were made to help her, particularly by one individual. I pay tribute to the time and work that he put in trying to help her. Others were also involved in trying to give her the training that she desperately needs. But it was not a secure institution.
Unfortunately, despite having made some progress, Suzanne again absconded and went on a further spree of stealing, finally committing arson which seemed to be completely out of character. She was not previously associated with anything like that.
Suzanne appeared at Clerkenwell Court on 10th January last and was committed for trial, again being remanded in custody at Holloway. I suppose that it was the only place where she could be kept. However, it seems most unsuitable for someone with her mentality. Whilst in Holloway, Suzanne tried to start another fire within the hospital wing on 16th March. Again, I and others tried to ensure that the right kind of establishment was found for her.
At her trial at the Old Bailey, according to the Isle of Wight County Press, her counsel was reported as saying:
This is a young woman for whom society can find no place, and who has committed offences she should never have been able to commit.
Judge Karmel said:
Society can always find a place for everybody. It may not be the most suitable, but society can find a place.
Counsel said that
a judge's order was needed to get the Department of Health and Social Security to take whatever steps were necessary to waive the regulations and allow the Hertfordshire hospitals"—


—it was suggested that there were places for her in Hertfordshire—
to take a patient from another catchment area.
Judge Karmel said that he could not express such a view until he had heard medical evidence to support it.
Counsel said that
many young people in need of psychiatric help were victims of bureaucracy.
He added:
I venture to think and express the view that your Lordship stands as the means of the public obtaining from the state these facilities which ought to exist in the interests of the community.
Judge Karmel replied:
This would sound good at the hustings but it does not sound so good in a court of law. I can only do what the law allows me to do. I am not a politician any more than you are.
I do not propose to make an order telling the Department of Health and Social Security what they should do. I can understand that they would regard it as gross impertinence on my part. They have their regulations and must abide by them.
And if the regulations are wrong it is for Parliament to say they should be altered, not for the courts.
The judge adjourned the case to 22nd April. In the interim, efforts were made to find a more suitable establishment to take Suzanne. Apparently, no place within the Wessex Region could be found. There were suggestions, as I indicated, of places for her at two homes in Hertfordshire. For some reason or other—there is some regulation which the Minister may be able to explain—it is not easy to arrange for a girl who should be in one region to be transferred to another. Anyway, the places that had been suggested in Hertfordshire did not materialise. Therefore, on 13th May an order was made for Suzanne to be admitted to Rampton.
I accept that, following the sentence at the Old Bailey that Suzanne be detained at Rampton for the foreseeable future, the Secretary of State went to the trouble of writing a fairly long letter of explanation to her father. In that letter of 25th May he set out clearly that he thought that the decision was right and he explained the facilities available at Rampton, which he had visited.
I make it clear that I have nothing against Rampton. I have never been there, although I have visited Broadmoor

twice. I know what good work is done in that establishment, because another of my constituents, a girl of 15, is at Broadmoor. I have grave doubts whether she should have gone there, and the case has been taken up by MIND. However, I took the trouble to follow that case through and I saw that girl in Broadmoor. I have seen the facilities there. I have no doubt that everything that can be done will be done for Suzanne at Rampton. But Rampton is about as big as Broadmoor. It has about 1,000 patients, 750 male and 250 female.
We know that some drastic patients are taken at both Rampton and Boradmoor. Murderers, people with suicidal tendencies and all kinds of patients with varying mental disorders have to be catered for. Therefore, I question whether these establishments provide the right kind of environment for girls of a similar mental disposition to Suzanne.
Rampton, being Nottinghamshire, is a long way from the Isle of Wight. I should have thought that it was important that the parents should have fairly close contact with her and at as frequent intervals as possible. I understand that her father and mother can claim up to 50 per cent. of the cost of travel by public transport, but if they go by car, which can be cheaper, no allowance is made. There are difficulties for the parents, who obviously want to see their daughter as often as possible. That is another reason why it should be possible to find a suitable place for Suzanne within the Wessex Region.
Is it true that there is nowhere in this country for teenagers like Suzanne and others of whom I have knowledge—there are at least two cases in my constituency—and that they must serve sentences at Broadmoor or Rampton?
I repeat, I am grateful to the Minister for taking this Adjournment debate at short notice. What is being done to rectify the situation? I understand that there was a report about a year ago drawing attention to the deficiencies in the facilities available for cases such as that of Suzanne Cornwell. I also believe that if there is a suitable establishment within the Wessex Region it should be possible for the Minister's Department to insist that a particular case be accepted in that hospital and not leave the decision entirely to the local director.


At present, if he does not wish to take a case, he can refuse it. One therefore has cases such as that of Suzanne Cornwell in which local social services departments can apply to no less than 28 homes within the area which might be suitable and no fewer than 28 refuse to accept her case.
The situation is getting worse. What are the possibilities for the future? What hope can the Minister hold out for parents of children like Suzanne?

8.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I should like to thank the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) for raising this important matter in the House. He is to be congratulated on his enterprise in securing the debate and on his humanity and concern to help. I shall do my best to reply as constructively as possible.
The case of Suzanne Cornwell, which has attracted wide public interest, highlights the problems which we are facing concerning mentally disordered offenders. As we have heard, Suzanne Cornwell is an 18-year-old mentally subnormal girl with a long history of anti-social behaviour, of absconding and of compulsive theft. She had been attending the Isle of Wight County Council's Medina Adult Training Centre when she committed the several offences of theft which led to her first appearance before the courts. She was made the subject of a guardianship order to the Isle of Wight County Council under the Mental Health Act 1959 on 27th May 1976. Following further appearances in court, she was charged with theft on 10th August and 6th October 1976. On both occasions she was discharged back to the local authority's care.
The Isle of Wight County Council, the Isle of Wight Area Health Authority and the Wessex Regional Health Authority made every possible effort to find a suitable placement for Suzanne. The county council was unable to find a suitable hostel because of her habitual absconding and theft. The area and regional health authorities were unsuccessful in finding hospital accommodation, since medical opinion was that Suzanne required training in secure conditions and that no hos-

pital facilities within the Wessex Region were suitable for her. Attempts to place her outside the region also failed. Health authorities must, of course, rely upon the judgment of hospital consultants as to the suitability of their units for a particular patient.
After her discharge from court on 6th October 1976, the county council arranged for Suzanne to attend one of its hostels, Glamis Court, for a period of assessment, and the county council and area health authority staff made strenuous efforts to help and support her. Unfortunately this did not prevent her absconding to London, where she committed the offences of arson, theft and forgery which resulted in her admission to Rampton Hospital following her court appearance on 13th May 1977.
The circumstances under which Suzanne was admitted to Rampton Hospital were as follows. On 25th April 1977, Dr. Sherry of Holloway Prison wrote to my Department requesting a place in a special hospital for Suzanne, who was before the court on a charge of arson. In his letter he made it clear that a place in a special hospital was required because no other suitable alternative hospital place could be found within the Wessex Regional Health Authority area. Dr. Sherry stated that the judge concerned with the case had made it clear that he considered Miss Cornwell to be a serious danger to others and that, if treatment in conditions of security were not available, he would send her to prison for an indetermined period.
As the House knows, the special hospitals were established under Section 40 of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 for persons who, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, require treatment under conditions of special security on account of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities. The security provided by the special hospitals is of such a kind and degree as to deter a determined absconder or to prevent the escape of a patient who would, if at large, present a grave and immediate danger to the public.
The application from Dr. Sherry placed the officials in my Department who deal with applications for places in special hospitals in a difficult position. From the papers at their disposal it did not


appear that Miss Cornwell met the criteria laid down in Section 40 for admission into a special hospital. At the same time, however, they were aware that there was no place available for her in an NHS psychiatric hospital within the Wessex RHA area and that, in the event of a place not being made available at a special hospital, the court would probably pass a sentence of life imprisonment.
In view of this, it was arranged that one of the consultant psychiatrists at Rampton Special Hospital should examine Miss Cornwell. The consultant's report was that Miss Cornwell was, in his opinion, impusively dangerous—as evidenced by her fire-raising activities—and that she should be admitted into Rampton Hospital. In the light of this opinion, the court was notified that a place would be made available at Rampton Hospital. The court made an order under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959 and it also imposed restrictions under Section 65 of the Act. The effect of the restrictions under Section 65 is that Miss Corn-well cannot be discharged, transferred or sent on leave from Rampton Hospital without the consent of the Home Secretary. Miss Cornwell was admitted to Rampton Hospital on 25th May.
As the House knows, Rampton Hospital is one of the four special hospitals provided for persons subject to detention under the Mental Health Act 1959 who are considered to require treatment in conditions of special security, and it is directly administered by officials of my Department acting in the name of the Secretary of State. It caters mainly for patients who are mentally handicapped, although all forms of mental disorder are treated there.
The hospital, which has about 700 male and 250 female patients, differs from ordinary psychiatric hospitals only in so far as treatment is carried out under conditions of special security. In practice, the perimeter security makes it possible to provide many patients with a much fuller life than would be possible in a hospital where this does not exist.
The Secretary of State has recently visited the hospital and has said that he is very impressed with the high quality of treatment, care and rehabilitation. All the usual forms of psychiatric treatment are available, the medical staff include a number of consultants and there are a

visiting dentist, chiropodist, speech therapist and dietician. There are also occupation staff, psychologists and social workers and a high ratio of nurses to patients. The occupational, educational and recreational facilities for patients are at least of the standard to be found in ordinary psychiatric hospitals. There is an indoor swimming pool for patients and a well-equipped gymnasium. Leisure activities include concerts and dances as well as various sporting activities. Patients' relatives are encouraged to visit the patients regularly, and there is financial and other assistance available to relatives who have to make long journeys.
Shortly after Suzanne Cornwell was admitted to Rampton, the Secretary of State wrote to her parents in an effort to alleviate their concern about the decision to admit Suzanne to Rampton. The hon. Member referred in particular to the problems of Suzanne's parents as their home is so far removed from the hospital. That is a point that I shall be looking into with a view to corresponding with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.
I am, of course, distressed at the need to detain a young woman such as Miss Cornwell in a special security hospital, but I am quite sure that the court's decision to send her to Rampton Hospital was taken in her own interests.
Since the inception of the National Health Service it has been part of its responsibility to provide facilities to treat all types of patients with mental disorder, the only exception being those who require to be treated in conditions of special security. The Mental Health Act 1959 did not change this fundamental responsibility. The changes of attitude which the Act helped to promote have brought about a vast reduction in the number of patients formally detained and in restrictions on the liberty of patients.
The danger is that this change of attitude could be carried too far. Staff may be reluctant to provide the necessary supervision for the few patients who require it, or they may come to regard these patients as not being their responsibility at all. In fact, some hospitals have become entirely "open" without making any alternative provision for the patients who need treatment in conditions of security short of that provided in the special hospitals.
In the 1960s there was mounting criticism—as the hon. Gentleman will recall—over the refusal of hospitals to admit patients who presented difficulties and a lot of pressure on the special hospitals to take patients not needing the maximum security provided in them. My Department therefore set up a working party in 1971 to consider the present and future needs for security in psychiatric hospitals and units. Its report recommended the establisment of regional secure units, and this was endorsed by the interim report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders.
A circular was sent to regional health authorities in July 1974 asking them to take urgent action to establish regional security units. Since then they have been investigating the position in their regions and preparing plans for submission to my Department. For our part, we have promised to meet the capital costs of approved schemes as well as providing special revenue resources. All regions are actively planning secure psychiatric units, and seven of the 14 have submitted preliminary planning proposals. The Government's aim was for all regions to have secure units by 1980.

Mr. Stephen Ross: That is very important and useful information, but can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Wessex Region is one that has those plans? If he does not have the information with him, a letter later will suffice.
The offence for which Suzanne was finally sentenced, which is obviously worrying, was arson. People connected with crime are more worried about arson than any other crime except perhaps murder. However, the offence was completely out of keeping with her character. One cannot help thinking that, had a secure establishment been available for her at a younger age, the offence would not have happened. This is a very important point to remember for the future.

Mr. Morris: I shall be seeking to make as clear as I can to the hon. Gentleman the position in regard to Wessex.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of the plans which are now being submitted by the regions. I take his point, and I will see that everything

that he has said tonight is very sympathetically considered. As I was saying, the Government's aim is for all regions to have secure units by 1980. Unfortunately there has been some delay, but we hope that regions will press on urgently with their planning. The recently-established working group should be a real source of help to those regional health authorities which are encountering overcoming local difficulties and misunderstandings.
In the interim, until such time as units are in operation, authorities have been asked to make provision for these difficult patients. The designation of certain wards or hospitals as interim secure units is envisaged. Special revenue allocations have already been made available, and the nursing staff working in them permanently and exclusively will qualify for a special lead payment of £201 per annum in addition to the psychiatric lead.
It is not intended that these units should take all patients who cause difficulties in local hospitals, either by their behaviour or by occasional absconding, but should take only those who so consistently present such problems as to make their local management impracticable with the facilities available. In addition, it is hoped that the units will help the courts by assessing mentally disordered offenders, and also provide places for offenders whose treatment needs require greater security than that available in the "open" wards of ordinary psychiatric hospitals but less than the very high security of the special hospitals.
In Wessex Region the regional health authority has provided an interim secure unit, the Lyndhurst unit, at Knowle Hospital, Fareham, Hampshire. The unit is intended for the mentally ill, and not the mentally subnormal, and its object is to give short-term care and assessment. A gradual intake of patients began in February 1977, and it is expected that the full complement of 14 patients will be reached by the end of July. The unit also has accommodation for 14-day patients, of which there are presently 10. Male patients only are to be admitted for the first year. The reason for this policy is that there are more of these difficult cases amongst men than women, and restricting the unit to one sex will ease the management during the initial period while


experience in the running of this type of unit is gained.
The RHA is planning to provide a permanent secure unit of about 53 places, but the siting of the unit has still to be decided. Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) is presently working on a strategic plan for mental illness services in Hampshire which is not expected to be completed until early next year. Once the plan has been accepted, a decision on the siting of the permanent unit will be taken and planning can proceed. I shall be very conscious of the hon. Gentleman's close personal and constituency interest in these developments, and I shall seek to make arrangements for him to be kept informed of the developments as they occur.
In addition, the RHA has established a multi-disciplinary working group to examine the needs of mentally handicapped persons who are profoundly disturbed or psychotic and others who cannot be satisfactorily accommodated in the open wards of a mental handicap hospital or in hostels. This group, whose

first meeting is now being convened, will consider the establishment of a regional unit if this becomes the obvious solution to the problems identified.
Regional secure units will form part of the psychiatric services for a region, and we hope that they will fill a gap in the services for the mentally disordered who require treatment in conditions of security. By relieving ordinary psychiatric hospitals of some of their most difficult patients, they should ease the burden on the staff. I feel that the present unsatisfactory situation cannot be allowed to continue and that we must press ahead urgently with the establishment of the secure units. The hon. Member's representations on this matter will certainly be taken very much into account in our further consideration of this very difficult and sensitive area of policy affecting mentally disordered young persons.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Nine o'clock.